Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Jute (Prices)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what changes in the price of jute occurred recently in India when price controls were removed.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The Calcutta market quotation for raw jute of nth November Was Rs. 180 per bale of 400 lb., compared with the maximum permissible price before control was removed of Rs. 87 per bale.

Mr. Reid: Can my hon. and learned Friend say how much jute the Jute Control purchased at the reduced control price; what stocks are now in hand; and how long they will suffice?

Mr. Henderson: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.

Civil Disturbances (Air Bombing)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will give an assurance that the Government of India will not undertake bombing from the air against those areas where communal disorders occur.

Mr. A. Henderson: As Mr. Nehru is reported as having recently reminded the Indian Legislature, "The Government of India may not interfere under the existing consitution with Provincial autonomy." Law and order is a subject

entirely within the Provincial field of legislation and administration in India. If a Provincial Government were to ask the Government of India for assistance by bombing, the request could clearly be considered only in the light of the circumstances which obviously would be most exceptional. My noble Friend is not prepared to give the assurance asked for. To do so on a hypothetical basis would unwarrantably call in question the ability of the Indian Government to deal wisely with such a situation.

U.N.R.R.A. RELIEF (CENTRAL EUROPE)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the limited U.N.R.R.A. relief "granted to Hungary in January last has now been exhausted; on what commodities it was expended; and whether any further grant will be made available.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I am informed that out of the original emergency relief programme of 3,333,000 dollars approximately 700,000 dollars remained unspent on 1st November. To this balance must be added a further 1 million dollars, subsequently credited to the budget for Hungary in respect of transit charges on U.N.R.R.A. supplies crossing Hungary to other countries. Of the original programme of 3,333,000 dollars, 2,662,000 dollars were budgeted for' food, the balance being divided between clothing, medical requirements and supplies for industrial rehabilitation. I understand that the possibility of a further relief grant for Hungary will be considered by U.N.R.R.A. at the end of this month.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion of this contribution to U.N.R.R.A. is payable by the British taxpayer?

Mr. Mayhew: It is not possible to say that. The actual allocation between individual countries is made by the Administration and not by His Majesty's Government.

Sir P. Hannon: Is not it a fact that the British taxpayer is making a substantial contribution to this grant to Hungary?

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is not one of the reasons for the shortage that U.N.R.R.A. goods were not delivered to the people for whom they were intended but were sold on the black market?

Mr. Haire: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no evidence whatsoever on the spot to substantiate the observation made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

Sir W. Smithers: It was a question not an observation, and it is fully justified.

Mr. Haire: Would my hon. Friend consider allocating medical supplies for the remainder of the amount now available, because they are in very great need?

Mr. Mayhew: I believe the majority of the remaining grant may go for food, but I will certainly bear in mind the suggestion just made by my hon. Friend.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) the volume and value of the relief measures provided by U.N.R.R.A. for the people of Yugoslavia; and the estimated contribution from the British Exchequer since the inception of U.N.R.R.A., to the latest convenient date;
(2) the volume of value of U.N.R.R.A.'s supplies for the industrial rehabilitation of Czechoslovakia as at the latest convenient date; and the proportion of the cost of these supplies borne by the Exchequer;
(3) if he will make a statement on the supply operations of U.N.R.R.A. in Austria since relief operations commenced; and the proportion of the total cost borne by the British Exchequer.

Mr. Mayhew: Details of the volume and value of U.N.R.R.A. relief measures to Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Austria are given in the report of the Director-General of U.N.R.R.A. to the United Nations dated September, 1946, entitled Economic Recovery in the Countries Assisted by U.N.R.R.A." perhaps I may be allowed to refer the hon. Member to this report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Figures are not available to show what proportion of the total cost of each country's supply programme has been borne by the Exchequer. It is left to the Administration to allocate the supplies and services amongst the various recipient

countries. Amongst other goods from the United Kingdom however, substantial quantities of industrial and agricultural supplies, textiles and clothing and medical supplies have been sent by U.N.R.R.A. to the three countries.

Sir P. Hannon: Is it not very important from the point of view of the taxpayers of this country, and in view of criticisms made in the United States and elsewhere, that we should have the actual figures of the amount contributed by this country towards this relief organisation; and will the hon. Gentleman undertake to prepare for the House, in the form of either a White Paper or an answer to a Question on the Order Paper, the details of these figures, in order that the people of this country may know what contribution they are making?

Mr. Mayhew: In the way the Administration is arranged at present, our contribution does not refer to any particular country; that decision is taken by U.N.R.R.A. itself. I believe that even if it were possible the detailed work involved in getting out the separate figures for each country as far as our contribution is concerned would be very heavy, and I very much doubt if it would be a practicable decision.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it not a fact that this country has contributed largely to relief in Yugoslavia, and does not that have some moral if not legal bearing on the answer given to Questions No. 6 and No. 16?

Sir P. Hannon: May I submit that this is very important? The people of this country are making a substantial contribution to this organised relief. Surely, we ought to know the proportion which we are paying from the taxation of this country to this work.

Mr. Mayhew: I think I have explained the position. I have given the gross figures, and explained that it would not be possible to give the figures for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary for us to be sending food to mid-Europe when they are already sending eggs and turkeys from mid-Europe to this country? We do not understand why that is necessary.

Mr. Mayhew: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA

Archbishop Stepinac (Sentence)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the petition sent to him by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, on behalf of a large number of his constituents of the Roman Catholic faith, asking him to take steps to secure the early release from prison of Archbishop Stepinac, of Zagreb; and what reply he has made thereto.

Mr. Michael Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries from our ambassador regarding the recent trial of Archbishop Stepinac.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I want to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Question No. 6 appears on the Order Paper. If I put down a Question about Communists arrested in South Africa it will be refused at the Table on the ground that there is no Minister who is responsible for what is happening in South Africa. Would you tell me, Mr. Speaker, how it is I cannot get a Question accepted about a matter of this kind in South Africa, whereas a Question can be accepted concerning matters of this kind in Jugoslavia?

Mr. Speaker: A point of Order does not arise there, because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) is asking what answer was given to a letter sent to the Minister.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. The Question submitted to the Minister in the letter is about affairs in Jugoslavia. If I write to the Minister about affairs in South Africa and try to put down a Question it will be refused at the Table on the ground that no Minister is responsible for what takes place in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker: That is another matter. If the hon. Member writes a letter to a Minister and does not get a reply, he may be entitled to put down a Question on that matter, provided it falls within the responsibility of the Minister concerned.

Mr. Mayhew: I am much obliged to the hon. Members, for having put these Questions down, and I should like to say that I have considered, among the many petitions forwarded to my right hon.
Friend and myself, that referred to by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). The Yugoslav Government contend that this trial and sentence of a Yugoslav citizen is entirely a domestic matter, and His Majesty's Government, having considered the matter fully, find it impossible to dispute this contention. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have no legal grounds for making official representations.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that our relations with the Yugoslav Government are of a friendly nature, would it not be possible to make unofficial, friendly representations on the matter, with a view to expressing the very great concern of very large numbers of people in this country?

Mr. Mayhew: My answer does not necessarily mean that no further action will be taken, but we believe that official representations may well do more harm than good to the Archbishop.

Mr. Thomas Brown: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how many petitions he has already received, and the number of signatories to those petitions? Is he aware that there is grave disquiet throughout the country about this particular trial and the result of the trial? Will he make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Mayhew: I am afraid that I cannot give those figures without notice, but they are sufficiently large to make me well aware of the disquiet.

Mr. Eden: While I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view about official representations, may I ask him to consider whether it would not be, at least, a friendly act to the Yugoslav Government to let them be made aware of what is clearly the feeling in many parts of this country?

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, and let it underline what is in his mind, that there are great numbers of people in this country other than Roman Catholics who are gravely concerned? It is not only the Roman Catholics who are concerned.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever may be the pros and cons in this distressing case, the severity of the sentence meted out to the Archbishop is really an affront to Christian opinion the world over?

Mr. Gallacher: If it had been a worker there would have been heard nothing about it.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman, and the Secretary of State, bear in mind that this gentleman is considered by the Yugoslav Government to be a traitorous collaborator, and, in view of that, will he underline the danger of interfering in a matter of that kind with the Yugoslav Government?

Nationals, Egypt (Extradition)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of the request received from the Yugoslav Government demanding the extradition from Egypt of a judge and four senior officers who fought with the Royal Yugoslav Army, which was disbanded in 1945; what reply has been sent to the Yugoslav Government; if he will give the names of the five persons concerned; and what evidence he has to indicate that these men should, in fact, be tried as war criminals on charges of collaboration with the Axis.

Mr. Mayhew: The Yugoslav Legation in Cairo applied earlier this year to His Majesty's Embassy for the surrender of a number of persons in British military camps in Egypt on the grounds that they were Yugoslav war criminals. They were informed that such persons could not be termed war criminals but that applications for the surrender of Yugoslav quislings should be made to His Majesty's Government through the Yugoslav Embassy in London. Large numbers of applications have been received from the Yugoslav Embassy for the surrender of alleged quislings but none of these, so far as the evidence shows, are at present under British control in Egypt. Such reports as my right hon. Friend has received since then indicate that a request has been made by the Yugoslav Legation in Egypt to the Egyptian Government on the lines indicated by the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. Solley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Yugoslav Embassy in London has made a request to His Majesty's Government for the extradition of Professor Baraga, who was in his absence sentenced to death by the People's Court of Ljubljana for the torture of Yugoslav nationals and collaboration with the

enemy, and can he say when His Majesty's Government Will accede to this very reasonable request?

Mr. Mayhew: I would certainly be very willing to look into that, but only with notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG (GERMAN NATIONALITY)

Mr. Orbach: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the practice of his Department to treat natives of Danzig as German nationals.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Mr. Orbach: Will the hon. Gentleman please convey his answer to the Minister of Labour, who does regard a citizen of Danzig as a German national?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH REPUBLICAN REFUGEES

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Spanish Republican refugees at Camp 4, Baynoli, near Naples, have been told that they are to be repatriated to Spain; and whether those with families in the United Kingdom will be permitted to join their relatives here.

Mr. Mayhew: I have no knowledge of the alleged incident, but am making inquiries. The admission of aliens into the United Kingdom is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman get into touch with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and try to persuade him to adopt a more liberal policy towards those democratic victims of Spanish Fascism?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Having regard to the similarity of what is complained of in this Question to what happened recently in Gibraltar, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that it is no part of a concerted policy to drive these political refugees back to Spain, where they would be murdered?

Mr. Mayhew: That is a very much wider question, and, possibly, I could have an opportunity of giving a reasoned reply another time.

Mr. Silverman: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not saying that this is a wider question, when I ask him if there is a concerted policy to that effect or not?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (DEGRELLE, EXPULSION)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the result of British representations to the Spanish Government for the extradition of Degrelle from Spain; and where Degrelle now is.

Mr. Mayhew: I regret that the Spanish Government did not see fit to respond favourably to the representations repeatedly made to them by His Majesty's Government, in support of the Belgian Government, urging that Degrelle should either be handed over to the Belgian authorities or, since he had arrived in Spain in German uniform, be sent to Germany along with those Germans who were being repatriated from Spain. Instead, the Spanish Government stated in August last that they had decided simply to expel Degrelle from Spain, and that he had left Spanish territory. It is not known where Degrelle is at present. Repeated inquiries by His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid have failed to elicit any information from the Spanish Government.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Degrelle was, in fact, released in Spain, and that five minutes after his official release he was picked up by a car full of members of the Falange organisation, and that there is every indication that he is still in Spain? What further pressure are His Majesty's Government able to bring to bear on the Spanish Government to get this quisling repatriated?

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government are seriously disturbed by this question. We have made repeated representations. We have not given up the attempt to trace Degrelle, and, as my answer indicates, we are still actively pursuing this question.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman recall a similar instance that arose in 1918, when a gentleman named Wilhelm took refuge in Holland, and was left there?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (WORKERS' REMOVAL TO SOVIET)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Germans have been deported, against their will, to the U.S.S.R. from the Soviet zone in Germany, contrary to the Potsdam or other allied agreements; and if he will make representations to the proper quarter in order to put an end to this.

Mr. Mayhew: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) on 5th November. Since that date the question of deportations from Germany has been actively discussed at all levels of the quadripartite machine in Berlin, and, as it has been impossible to reach agreement, the whole question has been referred to the Allied Control Council, who are considering it at their meeting on 20th November. Until then it is impossible to say whether it will be desirable for His Majesty's Government to take any further steps.

Professor Savory: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the detailed plans now being considered by the Soviet authorities for the deportation of 800,000 Poles, namely, the whole of the Polish intelligentsia?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Professor Savory: May I send the hon. Gentleman the details of the plans?

Mr. Piratin: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has any information to confirm the expression "against their will" used in the Question—to confirm that these people were deported against their will?

Mr. Mayhew: Our information suggests that some of the Germans who went to Russia were willing to do so, but that others were not given the option.

Mr. Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman see anything to laugh at in the question of deportation, as some hon. Members opposite do?

Mr. Scollan: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, if he has any knowledge of these plans to deport the Poles, whether they are likely to be deported to Scotland, where we already have the rest of them?

Professor Savory: They are to go to Siberia, my good sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN EMBASSIES (PROPAGANDA MATERIAL)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the regulations governing the publication of propaganda material by foreign legations and embassies in the United Kingdom; and whether their publications are obliged to indicate to their readers that they are sponsored by a foreign power.

Mr. Mayhew: There are no formal regulations on this subject. In general, the view has been taken that no objection can be raised to the publication of propaganda material by foreign diplomatic missions in this country, provided that it is not of a kind that would be likely to constitute a breach of the ordinary law, to embarrass His Majesty's Government in their relations with other States, or to constitute an interference in this country's domestic affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND

Elections

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Polish Government have yet invited a British delegation to observe the elections due to be held on 19th January next; and whether he is prepared to accept such an invitation.

Mr. John McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to have additional representatives sent to Poland to watch the election campaign, both before and on the day of the election.

Mr. Mayhew: The Polish Provisional Government have not invited an official mission of British or other foreign nationals to observe the Polish elections and it is not proposed to suggest such a mission.

Professor Savory: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have at present no British subject as a newspaper correspondent to observe these elections? The only British subject was sent home, and it seems that there is not a single British subject there as a correspondent.

Mr. Mayhew: The Polish Prime Minister stated at the Potsdam Conference, and gave us the assurance, that foreign corre-

spondents would be very free to move about Poland at election time, and we certainly hope that this assurance will be carried out.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the elections in Poland will be very much fairer than the general run of elections in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Astor: Can the Under-Secretary tell the House exactly how the Government will assess the true value of these elections? We recently debated the Bulgarian elections and how are we to assess the value of the forthcoming election in Poland?

Mr. Mayhew: We have our Mission there, and the question of whether extra representatives are necessary at the Embassy is being considered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House how many Opposition leaders have already been assassinated before the elections?

Peasant Party Officials (Arrests)

Mr. McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the secretary of the Polish Peasant Party in Cracow, Stansislaw Mierzwa, and three members of the party's provincial council were arrested last month; and if he has called for a report on these arrests as being contrary to the agreement for free elections.

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of these and other arrests of officials and members of the Polish Peasant Party, which clearly must tend to hamper that party's electoral activities. In the case of Mr. Mierzwa I am informed that he is charged with having connections with illegal underground organisations.

U.S. SERVICEMEN (PATERNITY ORDERS)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (I), if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the discussions between His Majesty's Government and the U.S. authorities with regard to the enforcement in the U.S.A. of paternity orders made out in the United Kingdom against former U.S. Servicemen;
(2) what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to safeguard the interests of the wives and children abandoned in the United Kingdom by former U.S. Servicemen who have now returned to the U.S.A. on demobilisation.

Mr. Mayhew: As at present advised, I regret that I can offer little hope that it will be found possible to secure the enforcement of affiliation orders, but we are still thoroughly exploring this possibility in relation to the numerous and complex State laws of the United States. The maintenance of the dependants of former United States Servicemen is being informally discussed with the United States State Department. I regret that, as regards these discussions, I have nothing to add to my written reply on 17th October to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bexley (Major Bramall). His Majesty's Embassy and Consular officers in the United States do all they can to assist British wives of United States ex-Servicemen who become involved in divorce proceedings in the United States courts.

Mr. Symonds: As these discussions have been dragging on for months, can ray hon. Friend say what is the particular reason which prevents some reasonable arrangement being made?

Mr. Mayhew: The difficulties about affiliation orders are primarily legal difficulties. The question of alternative methods of giving assistance to dependants over here is, of course, primarily a matter for the United States Government. I agree with the hon. Member that the position is not satisfactory, but it is primarily for the United States Government, although we are doing what we can.

Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present Minister of State assured me some months ago that a list of these cases was being drawn up in conjunction with the Home Office, and could he say whether that list is more or less complete, and approximately how many names there are on it?

Mr. Mayhew: I think that some 6,000 people are involved. Without notice I cannot give details about the list.

Mr. Nicholson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of the grave hardship caused to citizens of this country, and I

want to ask him if there are not some unofficial methods which might be adopted in the case of affiliation orders? Must it always be taken up on the highest official level?

Mr. Mayhew: There are unofficial ways of coming to informal arrangements, and these are being pursued by His Majesty's representatives in the United States.

Mr. McGovern: Would it not be the practical thing for the British Government to take over the responsibility and pay some of the paternity orders out of the Dollar Loan?

Mr. Scollan: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that no representations of any kind can be made to the American Government on a pressing matter of this kind?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Bread Rationing

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the nominal fines imposed on bakers for breaking the bread rationing regulations; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation imposing heavier penalties which will prevent further contravention of the rationing regulations by master bakers.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I am aware of one case in which a nominal fine was imposed on a baker for breaking the bread rationing regulations. I do not propose to introduce legislation on the lines suggested as the maximum penalties already provided are, in my opinion, adequate.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Would not the solution of this question be to abandon bread rationing?

Mr. Strachey: That will be done as soon as it is possible to do so.

Feeding Stuffs (Allocation)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that Great Britain is given a fair allocation of feeding stuffs by the International Emergency Food Council.

Mr. Strachey: I am satisfied that we are getting a fair share of oil cake, which is


the only kind of animal feeding stuff allocated by the International Emergency Food Council.

Meat (Packing and Delivery)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food if he will make inquiries into the dirty and careless condition in which the meat killed in this country, is packed and delivered to the retailers, and attempt to bring up the standard to that achieved by the packers and cleaners of our imported supplies.

Mr. Strachey: I cannot accept the generalisation that all meat killed in this country is packed and delivered in a dirty and careless manner, though wartime conditions made things difficult. Improvements, however, are being made as quickly as present circumstances permit. If the hon. Member knows of any places where the arrangements for the handling and transport of meat are unsatisfactory, I should be most grateful if he would furnish me with particulars.

Imported Fruit (Allocation)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Food if he is in a position to make a statement about the allocation and distribution of imported fresh fruits.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I have found that there is a tendency for home-grown fruit to be sold and eaten near the areas in which it is grown. It is impracticable to regulate distribution of this home-grown fruit so as to secure an even spread over the whole country. I have, therefore, decided to draw on the increasing supplies of imported fruit to compensate those areas, mainly in the North, which get a smaller share of home-grown fruits, by directing to them a larger share of the oranges and apples imported during the current quarter and the first quarter of next year. This will be done by making more frequent allocations of oranges and larger allocations of apples to these hitherto unlucky areas. The areas to be so treated are Scotland, Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmorland, Durham, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, North Staffs., Derbyshire, Notts., Wales and Northern Ireland. Fortunately, the total of imported fruit which we plan to import will be so much higher that the amount going to the South will also be substantially higher than during the past year.

But it will not increase as rapidly as the supplies to the North.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that this answer will give very great satisfaction to the people in the areas concerned?

Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister give: an assurance that should there be a glut of any home-grown fruit, there will be no restriction on sending it to those areas in the North which he has mentioned?

Mr. Strachey: There is no restriction now.

Mr. Bossom: Does it include pomegranates at 2s. 6d. each?

Mr. Medlicott: Is the Minister taking steps to encourage the increased production of fruit by British people who are anxious to be given an opportunity?

Mr. Strachey: That is a question of consultation between my right hon. Friend and myself, but we are certainly giving such encouragement.

Schoolchildren (Christmas Holidays)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food whether he intends to issue special food coupons for the benefit of schoolchildren during the Christmas holidays, to make up for the meals they normally get at the school during term time.

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid that there would be many objections to entering upon this form of temporary differential rationing. School dinners are provided primarily to enable children to get a hot midday meal whilst away from home.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister realise that these children are getting a good meal now? Are they to be denied these meals in future because their parents have been using their food ration for their own meals?

Mr. Strachey: I do not think that I can accept that imputation against parents.

Mr. Bossom: Where is the food coming from?

Mr. Strachey: School meals are a provision which can be made during term time and cannot be made at any other time. After all, it is a very great advance that we have school meals at all.

Meat Gift (Sole)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the fact that a pig's carcase, weighing 80 lb., with the wrapper marked "Gift to Great Britain from Rhodesia," was included amongst other carcases of meat for sale delivered recently to a butcher's establishment in South-East London; by what authority gifts to this country are put on sale; and who receives the proceeds.

Mr. Strachey: With the approval of the donors, the gifts of meat received from Southern Rhodesia are being distributed in accordance with the arrangements described in the reply given on 30th January, 1946, to the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Sir W. Smithers: If donors give permission for these gifts to be sold, who gets the money?

Mr. Strachey: These arrangements are usually come to in agreement with the donors.

Sir W. Smithers: But who gets the money?

Mr. Strachey: The money is used for the provision of other unrationed foods from the donors—in this case Rhodesia— as and when these become available.

Sir W. Smithers: What an answer.

Food Office Facilities

Mr. Drayson: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the fact that bread and other rationing is to continue for some time, he will arrange for food-office facilities to be available at High Bentham.

Mr. Strachey: I am sorry that I cannot undertake to open a sub-food office at High Bentham. To do so in the case of these smaller communities must lead to a quite unjustifiable increase in staff and expense.

Mr. Drayson: Is the Minister aware that this town is the centre of a large agricultural area, and that the continued absence of a food office there entails numerous visits to a neighbouring town, which causes great inconvenience to those in the locality?

Mr. Strachey: I am very willing to look into this individual case if the hon. Member will put it to me, but we must try to limit the number of food offices and sub-food offices which we set up.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Food in view of the fact that there is no immediate prospect of the removal of bread rationing, if he will now consider the introduction of mobile food sub-offices, so that small burghs in rural counties may be visited one day a week, with a view to the exchange of bread rationing coupons and issue of emergency food cards, etc.

Mr. Strachey: I regret that it is not possible to set up large numbers of sub-food offices, whether mobile or otherwise.

Mr. Macpherson: Is the Minister aware that some employees of food offices have lately been released, and where that is so, and where there is a wide distribution area, could he not employ these people in order to establish mobile food sub-offices?

Mr. Strachey: I am very willing to consider the suggestion, but I must again issue a warning that I do not think we must further extend very considerably a network of food offices in the country without careful consideration.

Sir W. Smithers: Sack the lot.

Milk Distribution

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food if the Milk Distribution Working Party have yet started working; and what progress has been made.

Mr. Strachey: The Committee on Milk Distribution has been at work for eight weeks and is making progress. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh may not like its progress when it has made it. This Committee is, however, composed of independent members, and I do not expect to receive detailed progress reports until they are ready to submit their final recommendations.

Mr. Gammans: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when the Working Party are' likely to submit their final recommendations?

Mr. Strachey: They will move as quickly as possible. We are much more concerned in getting a right answer, than in getting an answer on any particular date.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that the directors of United Dairies, Limited, at their 31st ordinary general meeting held on 25th October, recommended the payment of a final dividend on the ordinary stock of 10 per cent. actual, less tax, making 15 per cent. for the year and a special non-recurring taxfree bonus of 2½per cent., he will consider the possibility of reducing the controlled selling price of milk.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. But, as the House knows, I have appointed a special committee of inquiry which will, I hope, soon furnish me with a report on the whole question of milk distribution.

Mr. Greenwood: While I thank the Minister for his answer, does he not think that it is most undesirable that these fantastic profits should be made out of the distribution of milk at a time when we are providing more than £300,000,000 a year to keep down the cost of living?

Mr. Strachey: The appointment of this committee of inquiry is probably an indication that we do not think the present situation of the distribution of milk is permanently satisfactory.

Mr. Cobb: Does not the Minister agree that these figures indicate that the distribution costs of milk are too high, and is he aware that a paper issued by the Coalition Government in 1942 showed that the distribution costs of milk by the Cooperative Society in some parts of the country were only half what they were in London? Will he arrange for the distribution costs in London to be brought down to those for other parts of the country?

Mr. Strachey: These are just the matters at present under consideration.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Have not the employees of the Cooperative Society been showing some disgruntlement?

Infant Foods (Retail Restrictions)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that large quantities of baby foods and rusks are purchased for general consumption and that it is, consequently, difficult to obtain supplies for babies; and if he will arrange that these goods shall be sold only to holders of green ration books.

Mr. Strachey: Retailers have again been asked to restrict the sale of infant milk foods to persons who produce a ration book for a child under two years old. I am told that this reminder has had good effect, but I am keeping the position under review and shall introduce a form of control should that become necessary. I was not aware that there were similar difficulties in respect of rusks, but if they are sufficiently serious I shall invite retailers to restrict sales of rusks in the same way as for infant milk foods.

Mr. Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is also difficulty with regard to other manufactured foods, such as preparations of broth?

Mr. Strachey: I am willing to consider that.

Ration Books, 1947–48

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Food whether any arrangements have yet been made to print ration books for the years 1947 and 1948.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, for the rationing: year, July, 1947-July, 1948.

Parcels for Germany and Austria

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now allow parcels of unrationed food to be sent to individuals in Germany.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the recent deterioration in the food position in Germany and Austria is causing concern to many persons in this country; and if he will now give further consideration to withdrawing the ban on the sending of food parcels by individuals to their relatives and friends in Germany and Austria.

Mr. Strachey: The question of permitting people to send food parcels to relatives and friends overseas, including Germany and Austria, is again under revision.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Could the Minister indicate when a decision on this matter is likely to be reached, because there is a great deal of uneasiness in England on this particular subject?

Mr. Strachey: I appreciate that the House would like an early decision.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in reaching a decision, in the interests of peace, it would be most unwise to dam up the springs of charity and kindliness in the world? A great many people want to help by sending food parcels to Germany at the present time.

Mr. Chamberlain: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind my Question, No. 81, which is closely linked with this matter, and which suggests that, even if nothing can be done by means of ordinary parcels, something might be done through the extra Christmas rations which have just been announced?

Mr. Strachey: If a new arrangement is to be come to I think it would have to be come to in respect of parcels in general. If that is done people could use any of the extras given at Christmas as the contents of those parcels.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister bear in mind, in coming to an early decision on this matter, the fact that the present ban on food parcels is an offence to the conscience of a great many people in the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA AND CEYLON (CIVIL DISTURBANCES, CASUALTIES)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister how many persons have been killed and wounded, respectively, in India, Ceylon and Burma since 29th June, 1946; and if he will give figures for natives and Europeans separately.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The following figures are for casualties due to civil disturbances exclusive of ordinary crime. Separate figures are not available for European casualties, but they may safely be assumed to have been very small indeed. In British India, during the period referred to, 5,946 persons were killed and 14,550 wounded. Practically all of these casualties occurred in communal disturbances, but they exclude those in Bihar during the present month and also those in Noakhali and Tippera during October. For neither of these are reliable estimates yet available. In Burma, no persons have been reported as either killed or wounded in civil disturbances during the relevant period. In Ceylon, four persons were killed and 12

wounded in an act of sabotage committed during a strike for increased wages.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is owing to the Government's policy that there sit on the Front Bench the really guilty men, who are responsible for this terrible loss of life?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I regret to say that communal disturbances of this nature have occurred from time to time in India. They are all very deplorable, but they have occurred under various Governments, and I entirely reject the hon. Member's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARTMOOR (BATTLE TRAINING AREA)

Mr. Medland: asked the Prime Minister if he' is aware of the concern caused in the county of Devon by the decision of the War Office to acquire the whole of the areas used as battle training grounds on Dartmoor during the war; and if he will take steps to ensure that local authorities in the county, including the Devon County Council, the Exeter City Council and the Plymouth City Council, are enabled to submit representations to the Service Land Requirements Committee before any decision is reached.

The Prime Minister: Dartmoor is one of the areas still being considered by the Committee. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 6th November to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), relating to land acquired under the Defence Act.

Mr. Medland: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the representations which may be made, I understand, to the Service Land Requirements Committee can be made on the spot, in Devonshire, instead of in London, so that, we can get this Committee to have some local colour and see Dartmoor?

The Prime Minister: I will look into that point.

Mr. Charles Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give more careful attention to the matter on the spot, and to local representations, than has already been given?

The Prime Minister: As to representations on the spot, I cannot pretend to be able to be there myself.

Mr. C. Williams: Why not?

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this land is taken it will be the end of the scheme for a national park in the South-West, and that if that happens great disappointment will be caused to many hundreds of thousands of people in every part of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: All these points are being carefully considered.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the response to these representations will be made public before a final decision is taken, and whether, in the event of the War Office still taking the wrong decision, he can give an assurance that there will be a Debate on this subject in the House of Commons before Dartmoor is stolen from the people?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is mistaken. This decision must be taken by the Government, and not by any special Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST EROSION

Mr. Gooch: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government Department to deal with coast erosion has now been determined; and if he will indicate the policy to be pursued.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave on 25th July to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White), but I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: While the right hon. Gentleman is considering the matter, would he bear in mind that there are certain areas where serious coast erosion has taken place owing to local authorities being unable to carry out normal defence measures during hostilities, because of occupation by the military authorities? Would he look sympathetically at these areas?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that. We are having a careful investigation made of the whole problem,

and an engineer's report is now under examination.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety felt on the East coast, in places where an intolerable burden has been placed on the rates, a burden which it is almost impossible for them to bear?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, that is one of the points which is being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the long list of projects, buildings, roads, railways, afforestation schemes, ports, airfields, industrial plants, national parks and public buildings, etc., blueprinted and prepared, includes the Severn barrage and hydroelectric scheme; and if the new tidal model recommended by the expert committee which investigated the plan will be undertaken.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. The Severn barrage scheme, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, is a long term project requiring an estimated period of about eight years for completion, and involving not only very heavy capital expenditure, but also extensive calls on skilled manpower and on building and constructional materials at present in very short supply. For these reasons alone, apart from the important technical and economic problems arising out of it, the scheme is not one which can be regarded as immediately practicable. The question of a tidal model is receiving close consideration by the Departments concerned.

Sir S. Reed: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that no decision can be reached until a tidal model is constructed, which will take at least two years, and that with coal at its present and prospective price this scheme will be the cheapest means in the country of generating electricity?

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the tidal model, I intend to press for that matter to be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — LADY MacROBERT'S BROADCAST (CENSORSHIP)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Lord President of the Council why certain passages of Lady MacRobert's broadcast on Remembrance Day, which contained criticisms of Government policy, were deleted.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This is, of course, a matter within the discretion of the B.B.C. and not one for which the Government have any responsibility. I am informed by the B.B.C. that, in the course of editing, passages were deleted from Lady MacRobert's broadcast because they raised political issues which were considered inappropriate for a broadcast of this kind.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not this conclusive proof that the B.B.C. is under Socialist control, and that free expression is denied to British subjects, as in the case of this gallant lady? Is there any wonder that the Government do not want an inquiry into the B.B.C?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise under this Question.

Mr. Walkden: Can my right hon. Friend tell us why, the night before, when there was a very important speech by the Minister of Food, there were no references to it whatever by the B.B.C? No information was given which was complimentary to Britain's Socialist Government. This is very important to us.

Mr. Morrison: I do not know anything about that; my hon. Friend had better put the question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Higher Education

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has yet reached any conclusions on the Report of the Loveday Committee on Higher Agriculture Education.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I have already stated that I am in general agreement with the coherent plan suggested by the Committee for improved facilities for higher agricultural education to meet the needs of the future, and that I wished to commend it

to the attention of the Universities and other interested bodies. I am now considering the detailed recommendations of the Committee in the light of the views expressed by those bodies.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister expedite his final decision on the recommendations regarding the university course, particularly in view of the recent establishment of the National Advisory Service?

Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that conversations are taking place with the universities.

Sulphate of Potash

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the shortage in the supplies of sulphate of potash available to commercial fruit growers; and if he will arrange for some allocation of this salt to be made available to British growers at an early date.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware that' there is a shortage of potash, and regret that it is unlikely that supplies will be sufficient to make allocations, whether of sulphate or other forms, for fruit growers this season.

Mr. Medlicott: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem is particularly acute in Norfolk, where the soil is deficient of this element; is not he also aware that a certain amount of potash is at present being produced in the British zone of Germany, the greater part of which goes to Holland; and cannot he arrange for some proportion of this to be allocated to this country?

Mr. Williams: I cannot say what proportion of the potash produced in Germany is going to Holland—I should very much doubt whether that is the case. It is true that we recognise that there is a shortage in this country, and we are doing all that we can to improve supplies.

Mr. Driberg: But is my right hon. Friend not aware that it was stated in this House a few months ago that a quite considerable amount of potash from the British zone was going to Holland?

Mr. Williams: If my hon. Friend needs information about that, he had better put down a Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. de la Bère: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need today?

Forestry Training (Ex-Servicemen)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many ex-Servicemen have started training in forestry work under the Government scheme; and how many, having started, have since given up.

Mr. T. Williams: One thousand and thirty-six ex-Servicemen started training in forestry work under the Government scheme, and 260 have since given up.

Mr. Vane: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a very high and disturbing proportion? And is he aware that on some of the Forestry Commission estates the men are disappointed that they are expected to do monotonous work and get very little training?

Mr. Williams: I think that the true answer is that many of the applicants were ex-Servicemen who prior to undertaking this work were in sedentary occupations and who, in many cases, after a few days found that forestry work was not suited to them.

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into any case if I send him the correspondence?

Mr. Williams: Certainly.

Holiday Harvest Camps (Crèches)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the demand for accommodation at the holiday harvest camp organised by the Communist Party at Great Euston, Leicestershire, with a crèche for young children, he will consider providing more holiday harvest camps with crèches in 1947.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. In order to use the available facilities to the best advantage, it will again be necessary to confine accommodation at these camps to active volunteers.

Mr. Piratin: In view of the fact that there is only a limited number of people working in the fields and that this scheme gives scope to married couples to do so, why should not the Minister consider this revolutionary scheme?

Mr. Williams: Simply because of the reason which I have stated in the reply. We need all the accommodation which we have for actual active workers. We cannot, therefore, provide facilities for children.

Mr. McGovern: Is this Question an indication that the Communist Party, who have used the hammer for so long, are now to use the sickle?

Mr. Piratin: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sickle can be as effective as the hammer; and may I ask him to recall that last year the response to his Department's appeal for workers in the fields was not very good, and will he, therefore, consider this proposal in view of the fact that there was available accommodation in the camps last year for additional workers?

Mr. Williams: I do not accept that the number of volunteers was excessively small; rather I would say that the response was reasonably good, in the light of all the circumstances, and I think that the response in 1947 may be even better after the relaxation enjoyed.

Grain Crop

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the total estimated tonnage of grain available from the 1946 crop; and what percentage of this is estimated to be unmillable owing to weather and other causes.

Mr. T. Williams: The total production of grain in England and Wales from the 1946 harvest is estimated to be 4,926,000 tons. This includes grain retained on farms for seed or stockfeeding where tills is permissible. It is not possible to estimate at present the percentage that will be unmillable.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the large amount of grain known to be unmillable in the country, will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate action to make it available for poultry?

Mr. Williams: Whatever unmillable wheat is available is either retained on the farm by the farmer or finds its way into the feeding stuffs pool, out of which poultry get their rations.

Sugar Beet (Cropping)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps with a view to securing the deferment of the new clause in sugar beet contracts which requires farmers to grow sugar beet from 1947 onwards on the same land only once in every three years and thus enable many


occupiers of small farms in Norfolk and elsewhere to continue to grow this valuable crop next year.

Mr. Williams: This clause has been agreed between the British Sugar Corporation and the National Farmers' Union, and I am satisfied that its inclusion in the contract is desirable on grounds of good husbandry. The possibility of some relaxation of this requirement in individual cases for 1947 is, however, at present under consideration.

Ex-Service Personnel (Appointments)

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether priority is given to ex-Servicemen and women in allotting appointments under his department and the A.E.C.s.

Mr. T. Williams: Permanent appointments in my Department are filled through the agency of the Civil Service Commission. In accordance with general Government policy, no priority is given to ex-Servicemen and women in temporary appointments and appointments with war agricultural executive committees, but care is taken to see that they are not prejudiced vis-a-vis other candidates through their absence in the Forces.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has now come when some of the conscientious objectors who were appointed to do this work during the war might be replaced by some of those who bore the heat and burden of the day?

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST ANGLIAN HERRING FLEET (CATCHES)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Agriculture why approximately half the East Anglian herring fleet has recently been remaining idle in port when food is required in this country and in Europe for human and animal consumption.

Mr. T. Williams: The exceptionally large catches made during the four days ending 7th November, when 70,000 crans were landed as against 63,770 in the whole of the previous week, taxed the capacity of all outlets for the remainder of the week. To enable the accumulation of herring to be dealt with the Herring In-

dustry Board closed the ports on 8th and 9th November, and restricted sailing to 60 vessels on the night of 10th-11th November. The Herring Industry Board assure me that their policy is at all times to endeavour to obtain the maximum quantities which can be handled.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does not the Minister think that, in view of the Government's responsibility for the provision of food for Germany, the fact that these men and ships have been remaining idle, when there is so much fish to catch, is a reflection on the lack of planning and lack of foresight of the Government, and another example of Socialist incompetence?

Mr. Williams: It is certainly nothing of the kind. The Herring Industry Board are operating under a Measure passed by the Coalition Government, and, therefore, no charge can be levelled at this Government. The hon. Member must be aware, I presume, that the Minister has no power to issue directions to the Herring Industry Board.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction in Lowestoft at the operations of the Herring Control Committee there, and will he have the whole question of the local area committee re-examined?

Mr. Williams: I am aware that there have been complaints from merchants, but I am not aware that there have been complaints from the fishermen themselves. Perhaps the House will be interested to learn that of the catches already taken, only 41.5 per cent. is used for home purposes.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is not the Minister aware that had proper arrangements been made, these herrings could have been taken to Germany, and that an agreement has just been made between the Dutch Government and the Allied Control Commission to buy Dutch herrings; and will he consult with his colleagues to get this matter rectified?

Mr. Williams: As a matter of fact, a large quantity of herrings has been shipped to Germany already—as many as there were ships available to convey them. The Minister of Food has made arrangements for a greater number of sailing ships if surpluses should arise in the future.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will arrange for the East Anglian herring fleet to be fully employed and for catches surplus to United Kingdom requirements to be delivered direct to the British zone of Germany.

Mr. Williams: The Herring Industry Board have assured me that they will take all possible steps to ensure that maximum supplies of herrings are provided for the various markets. Twenty-four thousand crans of fresh herrings have already been shipped from East Anglia to the British zone of Germany; and 61,000 crans have been pickle-cured, the bulk of which will also be shipped to Germany. The direct landing of herrings into Germany from the East Anglian fishing grounds by British drifters is not practicable, but my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister of Food are arranging for increased supplies to Germany by carrier vessels.

Mr. Symonds: Can my right hon. Friend say why a ship cannot deliver fish to Hamburg equally as well as to Lowestoft?

Mr. Williams: Because I am informed that drifters cannot do the round trip, and that a special sailing vessel is required for that purpose.

Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister say why it is impracticable?

Mr. Williams: I have indicated that there are fuel problems for a drifter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY NATIONALISATION (VESTING DATE)

Captain Crookshank: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can now make an announcement about fixing the Primary Vesting Date under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): Yes, Sir. The National Coal Board have been working extremely hard in preparing for the actual taking over of the mines at the earliest possible moment. The administrative problems involved in an immense and unprecedented operation of this kind are, of course, formidable. Suitable office

accommodation has been difficult to secure. A great variety of staff has to be engaged, and first class personnel are never easy to find, especially for a new form of organisation. It will be some lime before finality is reached in the case of many assets for which options have to be exercised. The Board have also to make arrangements to continue conciliation machinery and wage agreements in the industry, and to provide for adequate financial arrangements and controls, and so forth. In many ways the Board will have to make temporary and provisional arrangements until their organisation is fully staffed. Composite undertakings will present special difficulties. In spite of the problems with which the Board are faced, there is, I am sure, general recognition in the industry, which I may say the Board share, that the mines should be vested in the Board at the earliest possible date. I am sure, too, that the Board can count on the fullest cooperation of the National Union of Mineworkers, and of all those concerned with the industry in overcoming the inevitable difficulties of the transitional period. After careful consideration, and after consultation with the Board, I have decided that the transference of the mines to national ownership shall take place on 1st January, 1947, and I accordingly propose to make the necessary Order under the Act to fix this as the Primary Vesting Date.

NATIONALISED TRANSPORT SERVICES (COMPENSATION)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): Among the inland transport services to be acquired and brought under national ownership are all the activities conducted by the railway companies, the canal companies or boards, and the London Passenger Transport Board, whose undertakings have been and remain subject to control under Defence Regulation 69. The Bill shortly to be presented to Parliament will propose that the compensation payable for these undertakings shall be based on the average of the mean daily quotations of their securities in the London Stock Exchange Official Daily List for 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th November, 1946; if, however, in the case of any such securities the pre-election prices—by which I mean the average of the midmonthly mean quotations for February to


July, 1945—were higher, then the pre-election prices shall be taken. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the values calculated on this basis, which will appear in the Bill. In the case of railway and canal securities which were not quoted on the six days in November, 1946, the compensation will be settled by arbitration if need be, having regard to comparable securities for which a price will be fixed in the Bill.
For each £100 (nominal) of railway and canal stock of each description the holder will receive such an amount of stock guaranteed by the Government as is in the opinion of the Treasury equal in value at the date of issue to the amount I have mentioned, regard being had to the market value of Government securities at the date of issue. I am making this statement in advance of the introduction of the Bill in order to put an end to uncertainty in regard to this matter.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Will the stock to be issued by the Government be freely negotiable, or will it be restricted, as in the case of the coal mines?

Mr. Barnes: It will be freely negotiable.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister say why the terms to be given to railway stock holders are so much less favourable than those given to the shareholders of the Bank of England, who were given the same income that they had enjoyed?

Mr. Barnes: I suggest that on matters of this kind hon. Members should wait

Name.
Description of Security
Value of Security (per £100 nominal).




£
s.
d.


The Southern Railway Company.
4% Debenture stock
128
3
9



5% Debenture stock
139
10
0



4% Redeemable debenture stock (1962–67)
113
10
0



4% Redeemable debenture stock (1970–80)
115
3
9



5% Guaranteed preference stock
137
0
0



5% Redeemable guaranteed preference stock (1957).
115
7
6



5% Preference stock
124
8
9



5% Redeemable preference stock (1964)
115
7
6



Preferred ordinary stock
77
12
6



Deferred ordinary stock
24
0
0


The Great Western Railway Company
2½% Debenture stock
95
10
0



4% Debenture stock
128
3
9



4¼% Debenture stock
128
13
9



4½% Debenture stock
130
7
6



5% Debenture stock
142
7
6



5% Rent charge stock
139
13
9



5% Consolidated guaranteed stock
137
0
0



5% Consolidated preference stock
125
3
9



5% Redeemable preference stock (1950)
106
10
0



Consolidated ordinary stock
59
1
3

until they see the list of securities which is to be circulated. As I have said, this statement is to remove uncertainty, and not to initiate a Debate.

Mr. Stephen: Since the Minister is giving such good value to the railway companies, could he arrange for the London and North Eastern Railway Company to increase the maximum speed of its suburban trains from 10 miles an hour to 15 miles an hour?

Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister state if the docks that are connected with railways, which are not listed, will also he included by the Government?

Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Member reads the statement he will see that all activities conducted by the railway companies are covered by this statement.

Mr. Piratin: Were not the Stock Exchange values of the railway companies in 1945 rather artificial, due to the fact that they were definitely controlled by the Government?

Mr. Barnes: I suggest that the hon. Member waits and examines the figures before he jumps to conclusions.

Mr. Gallacher: They are getting too much.

Mr. Erroll: What rate of interest will be paid on the new Government stock to be issued?

Mr. Barnes: As I have indicated, we will have to await the date of issue before determining that.

Following is the statement:

Name.
Description of Security.
Value of Security (per £100 nominal).




£
s.
d.


The London Midland and Scottish Railway Company.
4% Debenture stock
118
13
9



5% Redeemable debenture stock (1952)
108
17
6



4% Guaranteed stock
107
18
9



4% Preference stock
85
8
9



5% Redeemable preference stock (1955)
105
10
0



4% Preference stock (1923)
62
15
0



Ordinary stock
29
10
0


The London and North Eastern Railway Company.
3% Debenture stock
103
5
0



4% Debenture stock
118
7
6



4½% Sinking fund debenture stock
107
10
0



4% First guaranteed stock
106
17
6



4% Second guaranteed stock
100
15
0



4% First preference stock
58
5
0



5% Redeemable preference stock (1955)
103
13
9



4% Second preference stock
29
5
0



5% Preferred ordinary stock
7
6
3



Deferred ordinary stock
3
12
6


The London Passenger Transport Board.
London Transport 4½% A stock (1985-2023)
133
3
9



London Transport 5% A stock (1985-2023)
142
3
9



London Transport 3% guaranteed stock (1967-1972).
107
17
6



London Transport 5% B stock (1965-2023)
128
3
9



London Transport C stock (1956 or thereafter)
67
3
9


The Great Central and Midland Joint Committee (Lessors).
Great Central and Midland 3½% guaranteed stock.
101
10
0


The Great Western and Great Central Railways Joint Committee (Lessors).
Great Western and Great Central 3½% guaranteed stock.
102
10
0


The Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint Committee.
3% Midland and Great Northern Joint Line rent charge stock.
88
0
0


The Whitechapel and Bow Railway Company.
4% Debenture stock
112
10
0


The Birkenhead Railway Company.
4½% Perpetual preference stock
124
10
0



4% Consolidated stock
112
3
9


The Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway Company.
6% Rent charge stock
159
10
0


The West Cornwall Railway Company.
4½% Great Western, Bristol and Exeter and South Devon Joint rent charge stock.
115
10
0


The Forth Bridge Railway Company.
4% Debenture stock
109
0
0



4% Guaranteed stock
104
17
6


The Mersey Railway Company
4% New first perpetual debenture stock
116
15
0



4% Perpetual debenture stock (Act 1866)
116
12
6



3% Perpetual debenture stock (Act 1871)
97
0
0



3% Perpetual debenture stock (Acts 1882-3-5)
97
0
0



3% Perpetual B debenture stock
97
0
0



3% Perpetual preference stock
76
0
0



Consolidated ordinary stock
36
7
6


The Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Company.
4½% Preference stock
22
0
0


The Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Canal Navigations.
Consolidated stock.
103
15
0


The Grand Union Canal Company.
3% Perpetual debenture stock
87
10
0



5½% Perpetual debenture stock
111
17
6



4% Grand Union Canal development loan No. 1 debenture stock (redeemable 1953).
102
10
0



Capital (ordinary) stock
21
5
0


The Leeds and Liverpool Canal Company.
3½% Debenture stock
79
10
0



Consolidated ordinary stock
13
8
9


The Lee Conservancy Board
4% Debenture stock
117
10
0


The Sharpness Docks and Gloucester and Birmingham Navigation Company.
4% Debenture stock
96
10
0


NOTE:—Nothing in the statement affects securities redeemed before 1st January, 1948.


Although parts of the undertakings of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company are subject to control, those undertakings are not within the scope of the proposals to which this statement relates and, consequently, the securities of those Companies are not included in the statement.

DEMOBILISATION PROGRAMME (PERSONAL STATEMENT)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I am sorry to say that when replying on the Adjournment last Thursday night I misled the House on the demobilisation target to be achieved by the end of the year. I told the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) that he was wrong in supposing that the demobilisation figures would not be reached by the end of December. In this I was right, because the provisional release programme, announced by the Minister of Labour on 7th August, will in fact be achieved. I was, however, wrong in relating the demobilisation figures to 1,100,000. This 1,100,000 represents the trained strength to which it was thought last May the Armed Forces could be reduced by the end of the year.
As stated by the Prime Minister on 24th October, however, it will not be possible by that date to bring the Forces down to

the level then forecast. The reason why it will, nevertheless, be possible to achieve the release programme by the end of the year is that the programme did not involve a run-down in the strength of the Forces quite to the 1,100,000 trained men and women referred to in the estimate made in May. I confused the target for releases by the end of the year which will be reached, with the earlier target for ceiling strength by the end of the year, which will not be reached, and I humbly apologise to the House for my mistake.

Mr. Wyatt: As my hon. Friend informed the House on Thursday night that the brief from which he was speaking was supplied to him by the Central Office of Information, could not he now agree with my contention that the Government information services need strengthening?

Mr. De la Bère: They need abolishing.

Mr. Pickthorn: In order that there may be no further misunderstanding, may I ask the hon. Gentleman what is meant by the word "run-down"?

BILL PRESENTED

TRAFALGAR ESTATES BILL

"to terminate the annuity payable to the holder for the time being of the title of Earl Nelson, and to make further provision as to the Trafalgar Estates, "presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Ede and Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

KING'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[Fifth Day]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November].
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."— [Mr. Henry Usborne.]

Question again proposed.

FOREIGN POLICY

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Crossman.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: On a point of Order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) is in Order? Since it was put on the Order Paper there have been public statements by many of those who have their names to that Amendment, indicating that they do not intend to divide the House on the issue. I should like to ask, for my own guidance, whether it is proper to call an Amendment when it has been stated beforehand that some of those in whose names it has been put down have no intention of dividing the House.

Mr. Speaker: How am I to know what way a Debate goes, and whether or not a Division is going to be challenged? I choose an Amendment not necessarily

because the House is going to be divided upon it, but because I think it deals with an important matter. It remains to be seen at the end of the Debate, whether or not a Division is challenged. I can not rule out an Amendment because someone says they do not propose to challenge a Division on it. Someone else might challenge a Division. Before we come to the Debate I want to make an appeal to hon. Members. I know a great many Members want to speak on this important matter. I would, therefore, ask hon. Members to make their speeches as short as possible.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
and express the urgent hope that His Majesty's Government will so review and recast its conduct of International Affairs as to afford the utmost encouragement to, and collaboration with, all Nations and Groups striving to secure full Socialist planning and control of the world's resources and thus provide a democratic and constructive Socialist alternative to an otherwise inevitable conflict between American Capitalism and Soviet Communism in which all hope of World Government would be destroyed.
In view of the great public interest which has been aroused by the tabling of this Amendment, I should like to start by stating to the House, as briefly as I can, the motives which impelled us to put this Amendment on the Paper. I think there is no one who has failed to notice one remarkable contrast between the Government's domestic and foreign policies. In domestic affairs, the Government have pushed through with vigour and determination the policy to which they were pledged. They have done) it a great deal faster than many people on the opposite side of the House like, and without being afraid of being called doctrinaire, ideological, totalitarian or even Communist by hon. Members opposite, The Government have done this job with the full, enthusiastic support of hon. Members on this side of the House, and the full, enthusiastic opposition of Members on the other side of the House.
In foreign affairs the position is, obviously, different. No Government, of course, could lay down before entering office a full blueprint of the way they intended to go, but there was one central point in everything which we, as ordinary candidates, and which the Government spokesmen themselves, said. They affirmed that if a Tory Government were


elected that Government, in their view —and I entirely agree with it—would drift into close association with the United States of America, and would, thereby, render inevitable a division of the world into two ideological blocs which would be a danger to civilisation. They claimed —and I entirely agree with them—that only a Labour Government could stop that drift into two world blocs, and only a Labour Government could mediate fairly between Russia and America—that only a Labour Government would want genuine friendship with America, and genuine friendship with Russia. That was the center-piece of foreign policy, on which the Labour Government fought the Election. Hon. Members opposite may disagree with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am very glad that we are having disagreement at last. The further we have drifted away from that central piece of policy, die more enthusiastic has been the support of the Tory Party for the Government's foreign policy, until at last we get the impression, on this central' issue, that not only is there a complete and exclusive Anglo-American tie-up, but a tie-up between the two front benches.
We are told now that one must be a crypto-Communist, if one criticises this foreign policy, indeed, a Member of this House, according to a Sunday newspaper, described us as "Communistic lickspittles." I think as a Socialist he has managed to copy Communist abuse fairly well. Do we get very much further by calling each other names on this sort of issue? Was it not quite clear at the T.U.C. Conference in the debate on foreign affairs that it was not crypto-Communists only who were dismayed and distressed on this issue, but that this controversy was a burning problem throughout the Labour movement, that there were certain circles throughout the Labour movement who viewed with alarm this departure from the central thesis on which we fought the Election? Then at the Conference came the announcement on conscription which confirmed the delay which was known to exist in demobilisation. Consequently, hundreds and thousands of people outside the Labour movement began to see that foreign policy matters and began to see the relation between conscription and delayed demobilisation, and what was going on at conferences all over the world. Foreign

policy became a matter of life and death for the children of ordinary people all over the country.
The reason why we tabled this Amendment was because we felt the time had come to discuss this thing, not secretly, but where it should be discussed, frankly and openly, on the Floor of this Chamber. We want to focus attention on foreign policy and not to spread it to the issue of conscription. I should like to tell the House perfectly frankly that if the Government's foreign policy is wrong, I think we should need conscription all the more, and I am not prepared to deny this country arms because its foreign policy is wrong. That is why I plead that it is essential that the issue of foreign policy should be differentiated from conscription, so that we should be able to discuss this matter in one Debate, and 'the conscription issue, which is a technical issue, in another.
In order to express myself briefly, I want to concentrate on one aspect of this subject—the relationship of this country with Russia and America. We all know that when the war ended the real test began. There had been a great deal of publicity and propaganda during the war about the love and amity between the countries, but under that propaganda, as we who worked at headquarters know, the amount of actual detailed cooperation between East and West was very small indeed. Compare the amazing achievements of Anglo-American cooperation during the war, with the pitiable achievements of Anglo-American cooperation with Russia during the war, and we all realise that during those four years, while we were allied in war, virtually nothing was achieved to break down the suspicion which divides East from West. Directly the easy wartime propaganda of love for the Red Army, love for the American Army and love for the British Army was removed in Russia, America and in this country, there emerged those two ideologies which, to my mind, have be-devilled international relations in the last 18 months.
Everyone knows that we here, with the possible exception of two Members, dislike the Communist ideology. Why do we dislike it? Because Communist ideology destroys democracy, because the Communist enters democracy in order to get domination for his party, because he


uses and exploits the freedom of democracy to achieve domination. If he does not like a Government, it becomes to him a Fascist Government, whether it is democratically elected or not. We in the Labour movement know what the Communists did for the Labour Party. In 1918, they destroyed the German revolution, which, if it had succeeded, might have saved the world a lot of suffering since. In 1933, it was largely responsible for the divisions in the Labour movement. I remember the time in Berlin when we had Communists and Nazis engaged in a joint strike together, because it was a strike against the Social Democratic civil administration. Once again, it has started to bedevil democracy.
I also want to speak on a second ideology, which a lot of people do not recognise, and that is the ideology known as anti-Communist. That is equally a dangerous ideology to democracy and Socialism. It is the old trick of saying that one is attacking Communism and then attacking everything else to the Left of free enterprise. It is the ideology of anti-Communism which I watched ten days ago in the American elections, in which the pinkest Liberal, the palest person in a trade union, was condemned as a Communist and therefore voted against. Anti-Communism is as destructive of true democracy and of Socialism as is Communism, and one of the jobs of a Labour Government—and I believe that I speak here in complete agreement with everyone on the Government Front Bench—is to fight the battle not only against the Communist ideology, but against the anti-Communist ideology which, while pretending to defend democracy, just as the Communist pretends to defend democracy, demolishes it and destroys it in the name of free enterprise, and destroys the trade unions, in order to enthrone reaction and Fascism.
We have a double battle as a Labour movement at home and abroad, and it is on the subject of that double battle that we have tabled this Amendment and asked for the discussion this afternoon. There is only one way to fight Communism and anti-Communism, and that is to provide people with something better than either free enterprise or a Communist regime. The Socialist knows quite well that it is not possible to suppress either by force. Force is the medium through which Communism breeds. Hon. Members opposite

were in favour of intervention in Russia in 1919, and that consolidated the Bolshevik regime if anything did. It cannot be countered by force, but it is possible to put something better in its place, and I have always believed that the job of the British Government, and particularly of a British Socialist Government, was to show the world that it was not faced with the bleak and blank alternative of American free enterprise or Russian Communism, but that there was a better way of living, and one which all the peoples of the world would rather have, a better way of living, I believe, which could be squeezed out by the struggle of those two great Powers. That is what we believe, and we fought the Election on saying that it was essential that a British Government should remain free and independent to propagate the cause of the independent, Socialist, democratic, constructive solution which everybody really wants, and is afraid he will not get, because he may be compelled to join an ideological American bloc, or an ideological Russian bloc.
I do not believe that there is any dispute that we fought the election on this, or, on this side of the House, that that is the aim of our foreign policy. I believe also that what divides this side of the House from the other is that the aim of our foreign policy is to carry out in foreign affairs, what we are doing in domestic affairs, and to offer to the rest of the world that astonishing constructive experiment which we are carrying out at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] One begins to observe the difference of opinion on foreign policy. There is nothing but enthusiasm for this declaration of a principle which the Government share with me. That was the policy of the Labour Government. What has actually happened? In the course of the last 18 months the drift into two ideological blocs—and they are now regional blocs also—has gone on steadily. One small country after another has either had to make up its mind to ink up, very unwillingly, or, alternatively, is still being struggled over, being undecided to which group it shall belong. A great war is going on in China. It is a polite, Chinese war, but we all know that it is a war, on the model of the Spanish war, between two groups fighting for the soul of a China which does not want to be either on the American model, or on the Russian model, but on its own Chinese


model. That would be something which they really want to have for themselves, but it is not happening.
In the second place, not only is the world thus divided but the rest of the world outside this country believes that we have taken sides in the struggle. It is no good just looking in England for this point of view. Go to Paris or to any other capital in the world, and it will be found that there is no doubt there whatsoever that in the course of the last 18 months Great Britain has lined up on the American side in the struggle. I am not concerned for the moment to discuss whether that impression is correct or not, but merely to record the fact that it is the impression which exists. That is the reason for the widespread dispute with the Labour Governments of the people in Greece, Spain, France, and other countries all over the world, who danced in the streets when the Labour Government came into power—

Professor Savory: They do not dance today.

Mr. Crossman: They do not today and that, in my opinion, is because the Labour Government have given way to the views of the Opposition. An even more disconcerting fact is that this gradual drift into the American camp has occurred without any clear Government statement. There has been only one really clear statement about British policy in regard to America and Russia, and that was in the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition at Fulton. That was a clear and downright assertion of a certain policy. I can understand it; it is a constructive alternative policy, stating that there should be an Anglo-American alliance. The Leader of the Opposition is consistent. He also voted for Bretton Woods and the American Loan because he realised that there could not be an Anglo-American alliance — [HON. MEMBERS: "He abstained."]—he at least understood that an Anglo-American alliance, as advocated from the other side of the House, was not consistent with Imperial Preference, and an American Republican Administration. Hon. Members on the Opposition benches will also have to make up their minds that it is completely unrealistic to talk of an Anglo-American alliance unless they accept the economic basis of that alliance which the American Republican majority in Congress will demand.
What is the Government's attitude to the Anglo-American situation? All we know up to now is that the Government have refused to disavow the Fulton speech, but we do not know what that means. I believe the people of this country have the right to know whether or not there is an Anglo-American alliance, whether or not there should be one, and where the Government stand in this matter. At the present moment no one knows the exact relations of this country and America. We can only guess, on the basis of the somewhat inaccurate observations which we are able to make, but we do the best we can. I suppose that one of the ways, in which one can judge relations with America is by observing how we act in the matter of rebukes. Russia and Russian controlled countries have received, in my view, wholly justified rebukes, and there have not been similar rebukes for similar acts to the Government of the United States of America. Of course, some people who believe in United States private enterprise think that no such act could be committed by a Government like that of the United States, but let me give two examples. The Russians attempted in Eastern Europe to integrate the States there into their economic system, and to subject them to the economic thraldom of Russia. Very properly, we protested and fought against that. A few days ago, a treaty between China and the United States was signed. I have never seen a treaty which more brutally asserts the right of economic interference. Not one word has been said about that.
A few weeks ago the Russians started negotiating to get control of the Dardanelles. Once again we rightly pointed out that what they were doing there would endanger the independence of Turkey. A very right and proper check was put to Russian expansion there. What happens in the United States? That country brutally asserts that it is going to hold all the bases it won from the Japanese, U.N.O. or no U.N.O., and that if the U.N.O. Trusteeship Agreement is to be acceptable to the present Administration, it must include the right of secretly arming the bases, and the right of forbidding aeroplanes to fly over them. We have not heard one word from this country suggesting that we feel that that statement undermines the whole basis of the Mandates Commission—as it does.


We can only draw the conclusion there, that we are more closely affiliated at the moment to the United States of America, than we are to the U.S.S.R.
I turn to another question, the relationship between the Armed Forces of the two countries. I was assured in America that the Combined Anglo-American Chiefs of Staff Committee still exists. I was told on relatively good authority that the most secret intelligence is still pooled between the two countries. Germany, Italy and Japan have disappeared. About whom is that most secret intelligence being collected? If it is being pooled, is it not committing us, de facto, to an alliance?
I come to the third point. I read in the American Press—there was only about an inch in the British papers—that it has been agreed to standardise arms and equipment between the British and American Armies. Again, I would like to know if that is true. If it is true, the standardisation in peacetime of arms and equipment of the two countries is a far more powerful alliance than any scrap of paper. American commentators have been quick to point out that it is a remarkable convenience for America. It has been suggested by one commentator—and I would like to know the Government's reaction to this—that Great Britain will have to maintain a conscript Army, an Army too great to be supplied from her own economic resources, and that if she puts into her factories all the manpower necessary to maintain arms and equipment for that great Army, she will go economically bankrupt. Therefore, it is suggested that American factories might provide the arms for the British Army. In that case, we shall have the pleasant and interesting situation, in which Britain provides the soldiers, and America the guns.
If all that is true—and I am anxious to find out whether it is or not—we have an alliance with Russia on paper, and we are fully and exclusively committed to an alliance with the Americans in practice. I cannot help remembering my reading of what happened in the years before 1914, and of the staff conversations between France and Britain. I remember that certain members of the Government were not apprised of those staff conversations. That was in the days before democracy had really come. Surely we should demand of the Government that before they commit us to a series of ad hoc

decisions of that sort, we should be informed of the situation.
So the first purpose we had, in framing the Amendment, was to put to the Government three quite specific questions:

(1) Will the Government disavow the proposals for an Anglo-American Alliance, outlined in the Fulton speech?
(2) Have the Government agreed to standardisation of arms and equipment between America and this country? If so, will part of the British equipment be supplied from America?
(3) Are staff conversations now proceeding between Britain and America?
The answers to those three questions will enable the House, the country and the whole world to appreciate the extent to which Great Britain is committed to an alliance with the U.S.A. I only add that we should like the House to imagine the feelings of the Americans if it were disclosed to them, that staff conversations were proceeding between the British and the Russian staffs.
Now let me turn from those questions of fact, and try quite briefly to elucidate what our relations are with those great blocs. I would like to make one point straight away, which is that the main responsibility for the drift into two ideological blocs is not that of this country. It is that of the Americans and the Russians. I think the time has come for some very plain speaking on this subject with regard to both those great Allies. Remember that General Eisenhower himself used to say that diplomacy was no use between Britains and Americans, and that the best thing was to say what you really thought. The time has come when some things which are thought on this subject should be said.
The death of President Roosevelt—as we see on looking back—was one of the great disasters of the world. It brought with it the disintegration of all the progressive forces in America. The Democrats turned from being a great liberal party under his leadership, to being a collection of vested interests. It was thrown out of office because it was only that. After it was thrown out, in that upsurge following the war, an upsurge closely similar to that which occurred in this country in 1918, a Republican majority was established, pledged absolutely to free enterprise. That majority is firmly convinced that only free enterprise will work at home


and abroad. There are no powerful, progressive forces left at the moment in America, as an effective check on the Administration.
At the moment, foreign affairs go more and more, in my view, into the hands of very powerful, ambitious men in the Army arid Navy Departments. We cannot pretend to know what goes on inside the American Cabinet unless Cabinet Ministers tell us. I do not think that Mr. Wallace is a very great witness as regards Great Britain, but I think he was an excellent witness as regards America. Mr. Wallace gave us a very clear warning of the imperialist tendencies of certain groups close to the Administration. We have seen evidence of it in the demonstrations at Bikini, which were not concerned with science as much as with a display of force; and in the demonstrations of the American fleet thousands of miles from their own bases, in the Mediterranean. Again, I would like the House to imagine what would happen if any other fleet had done the same thing near America. We have seen it, when the Yugoslav crisis was blown up and magnified in America almost into a state of war. We have seen it in the blunt statement about the Pacific bases.
We have to admit the fact that we are faced in America with very dangerous tendencies. We have to admit that those tendencies exist. We must do all in our power to check and to control them. America must work out her own fate. She has to go her own way. We Socialists know what the result will be. We know that in a period of time there must be a great slump and a second New Deal, and that gradually America will work her way round to where the rest of the world is going. In this great intervening period, it will be unwise to have too great an expectation of American economic cooperation abroad, and it will be dangerous if we base any policy on the supposition that we shall get it. We have to try to get it. We have to try to work with the Americans and understand them, and not be impatient with tendencies with which we disagree. It would be illusory to believe that there is an economic basis there for Anglo-American alliance.
Now let me turn to the other side of the picture. The other main cause of the

present drift into two blocs—in my view the second main cause—was the diplomatic and propaganda offensive launched 'by the Russians against the British Empire and the British Commonwealth. There has never been a more disastrous mistake. It was calculated by the Russians upon the basis that Great Britain If was weak and that America was powerful and hated the British Empire, and that J there might be a chance of disrupting the British Empire, and so securing Russian frontiers and Russian safety for ever. Exactly the reverse happened to what the Russians hoped. The net result was that America swung into line and began her countersqueeze. We have this process of squeeze and countersqueeze going on between these two great blocs.In the course of this squeeze and countersqueeze, so far as we can see from the outside, His Majesty's Government, under almost irresistible pressure—I do not deny the difficulties of the Government but I have to admit the facts—succumbed to that pressure to the extent of lining up very closely with the U.S.A. In my view, that was a tragic mistake.
I want to state briefly the reasons why I hold that view. There are four. The first is that, if we line up with the Americans and consolidate this bloc, we shall have a perpetual armistice and no peace. There will be a perpetual state of tension between two worlds in which vast armies have to be maintained by both sides—a state of tension like that which existed during the '30's when we were trying to organise collective security against Hitler. The real issue we have to decide is whether it is right and proper to assume that methods of collective security, methods of caging the beast, which were wholly justifiable in dealing with Germany—because Nazi Germany was bound to make war; war was inevitable and the only thing to do was to prepare for war —should be adopted in respect of a country which only 18 months ago was our Ally in war. If that is the assumption, then the Anglo-American bloc and alliance is common sense. If we are to assume the worst, and to assume that, we are then forced into that position. I do not believe that this party or this Government can or ever will make that assumption.
The second reason is that the lining up of the Anglo-American bloc has destroyed the parties of the Centre and the Centre


Left in Europe. We have watched the slow decline of the Socialist Party in France, and we have watched the weakness of the Socialist parties throughout Europe. It has sometimes been owing to internal weakness, but one major element which has caused the weakness of the democratic Socialist parties in Europe has been the sense that the world is splitting into two blocs—American free enterprise or Communism—and that the choice is between joining the anti-Communist bloc or the Communist bloc. In the process of that squeeze, democracy—the thing we all accept—is squeezed out. Our best friends are disillusioned and feel that the only thing is to join either the Communist Party or the Catholics on the Right. That is the second reason why this ideological blocis injurious to this country.
The third reason is the weight of military commitments. It is already clear that even under the present arrangement we are being saddled with military commitments, including conscription, far too heavy to bear. I ask the House to remember the parallel of France after the last war. The French attempted to maintain great armies and to build the Maginot Line. In the end that did not profit France, ourselves or America. We should recognise that no policy which demands military commitments and equipment which we cannot afford, is tolerable or safe to this country or to democracy.
What is the real and basic problem? Underlying everything is the fear of aggression. Every great Power fears aggression—the Russians, ourselves and the Americans. I believe that every great Power today is more concerned to prepare against aggression than to make peace. Who is going to do the attacking? The only Power which has the economic and physical potential is America. We know that democracy prevents a preventive war. That is one of the great things about democracy—it prevents one committing that cardinal sin Is Russia to commit the aggression—without the atomic bomb or the economic potential, weak and devastated by war? It is out of the question. We know that we are not going to do it either. Why then is there this fear of war? I suggest, as one proposal to the Government, that we should make the assumption now that there is not going to be a war for some time at least, desist from staff conversations outside the Commonwealth and not

subordinate policy to strategy, and put everything we have into the Socialist policy of building up Socialism and democracy wherever we can.
Let us face the difference between the two policies. There is the Fulton policy which regards Russia like Nazi Germany, and is seeking allies to join in and suppress her when she tries to expand. The alternative is to cooperate fully with Russia and America, refuse all exclusive commitments on either side, and remain really independent, even at economic cost to ourselves, and through that independence to exert that moral influence which alone can save the world. The great block and the obstacle to that policy seems to me and to the other supporters of this Amendment to be the impression in the world that there is an Anglo-American bloc. I beg the Prime Minister to disown the Fulton speech once and for all. We shall then have the support of all the countries in Europe which are waiting for that declaration. France cannot move towards this country, while this country is associated directly with America in an exclusive military understanding—

Hon Members: Why not?

Mr. Crossman: It has been said that in putting this Amendment forward we are forcing a Division which would weaken the Government. The Government know that that is untrue. We shall not force a Division today. [Laughter] Hon. Members on the other side who laugh might recall their own tradition in the '3o's. If a Division is called and the Conservatives support the Government, it will confirm the fear that the Labour Government, despite their pledge, are acting in accordance with the Fulton speech. That is not the wish of those on this side of the House. Our aim is different. We realise the difficulties with which the Government are faced, especially the economic problem which limits freedom of action. We believe that a Socialist Britain which puts into effect an independent British policy and refuses to join any ideological bloc is the only power which can break the present deadlock and save this country and the world. We know freedom cannot survive in a world of either American free enterprise or Russian Communism. We cannot, like either of those two Powers, seek to dominate. We can seek to lead if we are bold and independent, and if we put into


practice abroad the principles of our domestic policy, we and we alone can prevent the third world war. That is the spirit in which I move this Amendment.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Reeves: I beg to second the Amendment.
I ask the House to believe that I would rather be doing anything than seconding this Amendment to the Address today. Only a sense of the great crisis of our times impels me to do so. Because of that I crave the indulgence of the House for keeping very close to my text. Every word that we say today must be weighed with scrupulous care. Nothing we say must contribute to a worsening of international relations Indeed, unless this Debate is a contribution to an improvement in those relations, it were better it had not been initiated. I placed my name to this Amendment with a deep appreciation of its implications, and all those who are associated with the Amendment are profoundly disturbed, worried and saddened by the turn of events in foreign relations in so short a time after the end of the war. The future of mankind is in the melting pot Mankind, as it were, stands at the cross-roads of war and peace, and our actions during the next few months will determine the fate of millions. We have already had two devastating world wars. The first was terrible enough in all conscience, but the second has been more terrible, in death, destruction and in almost unexampled cruelty. Vast areas of Europe, and of the world for that matter, are today in ruins, and starvation is stalking Europe on our very doorstep. We feel ourselves completely impotent to cope with it.
Our present Government, as' has already been said, have promoted a magnificent programme of social betterment in this country, a programme with which hon Members on the other side are themselves associated. They cannot deny that all the social insurance plans and all plans for social benefit have had their support. This policy must succeed, because we owe it to our heroic people, but in my view this programme depends upon permanent peace—in fact, man's whole future depends upon a lasting peace, and unless peace is preserved, annihilation stares mankind in the face. Who is challenging the peace of the world at the present

moment? Before the war, it was the Axis Powers, but today we have a widening gulf appearing, and antagonism sharpening, between an all—pervading America and a reborn Russia growing conscious of her power every day, both mighty beyond compare. He who brings these forces together in amity, will render mankind a supreme service. We in this country are in a peculiar position, and can help very considerably to do that. There are forces in America striving in this direction. Only recently, Henry Wallace wrote to the President in very definite terms, and among many other things he said that we should make an effort to counteract the irrational fear of Russia which is being systematically built up in the American people by certain individuals and publications. The slogan that Communism and capitalism, regimentation and democracy, cannot continue to exist in the same world is, from a historical point of view, pure propaganda. He went on to say that the United States of America should not have discriminated against the U.S.S.R. in the matter of a loan. But hon. Members know the terms of that very long letter which was sent to the President. It all bore out the argument that there was no need for this great cleavage in world affairs.
The unfortunate part of it all is that Russia feels—she cannot help but feel— that Great Britain is "ganging up" with America against her. And, if I may say so, Russia in the past has had cause to mistrust the West, ever since 1017. She cannot forget the war of intervention. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) played no inconspicuous part in that fiasco. There are some who believe that he is playing the same role today. The hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) asked, and I re-echo his words, that we should have a clear and precise repudiation of the mischievous ideas implicit in the Fulton speech. Again, Russia remembers the cordon sanitaire and the years of misrepresentation and vilification. Now she sees America and this country with combined staff arrangements and a closely coordinated intelligence system. If we were in Russia's shoes, we should have reacted in exactly the same way as she has reacted, and I ask my colleague who is to reply why we have joined America in this way. Why is the diplomacy of


our two countries running along parallel lines, and against whom is this virtual alliance aimed? Are we happy to see America extending her outposts all over the world, right up to the very doorstep of the Soviet Union? We want our minds to be at rest, and we sincerely hope that, as a result of this Debate, that object may be achieved. If it is thought that our security lies in that direction, I ask that we should think a thousand times before it is too late. Of course, I expect to be told that Russia refuses to play ball, and that she is awkward. I know, but there are very many good reasons for it, and if we ask Russia to understand us, we have to learn to understand Russia, and we must strive with all our might and main to do so.
The hon. Member for East Coventry referred to the question of the Dardanelles. Russia is interested in the Dardanelles; from Russia's point of view those Straits are as important to her as the Straits of Dover and the Panama Canal are to us and America. We have to look at it from her point of view and if we do this we shall probably understand things a little better. We must make ourselves aware of Russia's history. She, like us, yearns for security. Vast areas in Russia have been devastated and the work of rebuilding needs a long period of peace. Russia wants peace more than any other country on the globe. We have a treaty of friendship with Russia for 20 years; may I ask the Prime Minister to declare without hesitation that so far as Russia is concerned, this country is not prepared to go to war against her in any circumstances? All we ask is that we should return to the well-defined party policy on foreign affairs. Just before this Debate started, when I was preparing these few notes, I turned up a copy of "Let us Face the Future." I knew that we were expressing party policy, and I have been reinforced in that view as a result of reading these passages:
No domestic policy, however wisely framed…can succeed in a world still threatened by war. Economic strife and political and military insecurity are enemies of peace.
That appeared in "Let us Face the Future," but let me quote a more pregnant phrase:
And let it not be forgotten that in the years leading up to the war the Tories were so scared of Russia that they missed the chance

of establishing a partnership which might well have prevented the war.
What stands in the way of such a partnership today? Cannot we renew our efforts to cement our relations? Again, the kernel of the international policy of the party was expressed in these words:
The British Labour movement comes to the tasks of international organisation with one great asset: it has a common bond with the working peoples of all countries, who have achieved a new dignity and influence through their long struggles against the Nazi tyranny.
Yes, this is where we stand, and we reecho that famous phrase:
It is only the Left that can understand the Left.
These forces everywhere are the forces we should be encouraging. They are our natural allies. Today they do not feel so encouraged. That is why we who have associated ourselves with this Amendment—

Mr. Logan: Do I understand my hon. Friend to be advocating a British and Russian alliance?

Hon. Members: There is one.

Mr. Logan: Is my hon. Friend advocating that, because it was not laid down by the mover of the Amendment?

Mr. Reeves: I have already referred to an alliance which is in existence, and if my hon. Friend will be patient and allow me to develop my argument, he will see that I am not arguing for exclusive alliances at all.

Lord John Hope: Is not the hon. Member's difficulty that facing the future is not always the same thing as facing the facts?

Mr. Reeves: I have no difficulties on this score. That is why we feel that our foreign policy should be reviewed and recast, because we believe we have a great role to play in international politics. This great social democracy of ours envisages a world of free men, socially secure and capable of commanding their destiny. We believe this sublime hope can provide us with the moral leadership of the world. It will do more than that; it will help to ensure security from war by means other than armed forces. In this respect, we must all admit we are now exceedingly weak. Our assets are far too attenuated.
We know only too well that industrially it is almost tragic, that we have to promote schemes of conscription while America, on the other hand, can spend £800 million on a navy in one year, and Russia can raise an army of many millions.
I am certain that our security does not lie in that direction. This country needs a positive peace policy. We have to extend the scope of our unique Commonwealth of free peoples by joining with those who share our way of life, and joining with those who share our ideals. Only then can we make effective contributions to the United Nations organisation. But we can do more than that; we can become the persistent, and consistent, advocate of peace throughout the world. We can be the actual peace force in the United Nations organisation. Instead of seeking military alliances, let us find security by making the United Nations organisation the instrument of our policy. In this, we have much to offer. We are a great Commonwealth, built up over many years. We possess strategic areas of tremendous importance. Let us offer to throw them into the common pool, for, by so doing, we shall gain far more security than otherwise. If we can obtain security in this way, it will be far better than all the Gibraltars in the world.
I can now see a certain hand moving which means that I have reached the end of my allotted time and there are many of my hon. Friends who wish to speak. May I, therefore, end by quoting the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who said that nations must be prepared to surrender a measure of their sovereignty in the interests of world peace organisation. If we believe that, we must translate such ideas into reality by acts of sacrifice and faith in the common man. The Foreign Secretary has said that he would like to see a world organisation elected by the peoples of the world. I am profoundly convinced that this is the line of advance. I am certain that this country of ours, with its limited resources, will never gain security, either by alliances, or by its own armed might, but by its moral leadership of the world, by gathering together all those elements, those magnificent elements, people all over the world, men and women of good will who will support a policy of this kind and will, I am convinced, support us if we go along in this direction.

4.38 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: My right hon. Friends and I on these Benches have no wish to intervene at length in this domestic battle, this internecine struggle within the Labour Party We are,, if I may allude to rather than quote from Lucretius, in the happy position of "watching from the safety of the land the great struggles of another, when the winds blow and the waters rage. "But for all that, I should like to explain our attitude on this issue. We consider the timing of this Debate quite deplorable. We gather that it is the culmination of much argument—Bournemouth, the Labour Party Conference, Brighton, the Trades Union Congress, the Committee Rooms in and about the Palace of Westminster, and the Parliamentary Labour Party—and now the dirty linen has been brought down to be washed publicly. It is here for our inspection, and, quite frankly, we do not like the look of it, and I do not suppose the Prime Minister does, either. We feel that these domestic quarrels should be composed, if they can be composed, elsewhere. But, if they cannot be composed elsewhere, and have to come down here, then we feel that there should be a real showdown, a decision taken, and a Division, so that everybody may know in this country and overseas just exactly where His Majesty's Government stand, and just how much support they have. It seems to us that that is the only fair way of treating the Foreign Secretary. I should like to ask therefore if this is only shadow boxing, because, if it is, then in the light of the world situation, this is a most inopportune time for it.
We have heard a very interesting speech by the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). The voice of the mover was the voice of Winchester and New College, but I cannot believe that the verbiage of this Amendment originated in either of those two very precise educational institutions. The voice is the voice of a university tutor, but the words are those of a Politbureau. We would like to know how many votes and how many voices there are supporting him. According to the various editions of the Order Paper in the last few days a total of 58 names has appeared. But if one compares the past of the signatories, as given by their own descriptions of themselves in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion," one


will find that there are only two who describe themselves as ex-manual workers, only two as belonging to the core, so long respected in this House, of the old Labour Party. This is a mutiny of the intellectuals. Here are the dentists, the doctors, the solicitors, the accountants, the professors, the dons, the Socialist capitalists and the company directors. What is more, they appear to be mostly the intellectual new boys. In opening the doors so wide to the doctrinaire Socialists, I wonder if the Labour Party has not taken to its bosom a viper which will ultimately destroy it.
Besides this intellectual mutiny, there are two points to which I feel I should call attention. One is this: Two names have disappeared from the latest edition of the Order Paper, including one of the original "big six," in whose name it was put down. I hope that the Members concerned will today give us an explanation, because on Saturday I read in the "Yorkshire Post" the following—and if I give the names it is because they are in the newspaper:
One name…has been added to the list…and two have been withdrawn. Captain Mark Hewitson and Mr. W. Perrins have withdrawn in accordance—

Captain Hewitson: I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—

Captain Crookshank: May I finish the sentence, because I think I am opening the door through which the hon. and gallant Gentleman may perhaps wish to pass. The "Yorkshire Post" says this—

Captain Hewitson: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet and speaking at the same time.

Captain Crookshank: The "Yorkshire Post" says:
Captain Mark Hewitson and Mr. W. Perrins have withdrawn in accordance with the wishes of the Municipal and General Workers' Union. Captain Hewitson is national industrial officer of the Union and Mr. Perrins is an official of the Union.
I think it is of importance that it should be placed on record whether this is a true statement of the facts or not.

Captain Hewitson: I rose to try to enable the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to avoid making a faux pas. He was courteous enough, before the Debate, to send a note to my hon. Friend the Member for the Yardley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Perrins). The name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Yardley Division is still on the Order Paper; it has not been withdrawn. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that there has been no pressure from anywhere, there has been no hint from anywhere, for any name to be with drawn from the Order Paper. I give that honest assurance.

Captain Crookshank: I am sure that the House will be most profoundly grateful to hear that. As this statement appeared in the public Press, I did think that the hon. Members would be glad to have the opportunity, in the most public manner, of repudiating it.

Mr. Perrins: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me to say that the report in the Press, so far as it concerns myself, is totally inaccurate? My name has not been withdrawn from the Order Paper.

Colonel Wigg: What was the name of the paper?

Captain Crookshank: The "Yorkshire Post" of Saturday. I am very glad to find that it was an inaccurate statement. I thought it was a most serious reflection upon the conduct of any hon. Member of this House.
That settles that point; it does not, however, settle the other interesting point. There appears to have been, among these names, those of no fewer than five Parliamentary Private Secretaries. That is certainly an innovation in our affairs, and it is even stranger, when one considers the position of the Minister of Health, because in the party there appear to be both his wife and his Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Miss Jennie Lee: Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is the hon. Lady raising a point of Order?

Miss Lee: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw—

Captain Crookshank: There is nothing to withdraw. The hon. Lady's name is there.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady cannot speak unless she is called upon. If she wishes to raise a point of Order, I am willing to listen to it.

Miss Lee: On a point of Order. As there have been no hon. Members elected as neo-Fascists, need we have that Fascist way of thinking introduced?

Mr. Benn Levy: On a point of Order. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been enjoying himself and entertaining the House in his characteristically gossiping fashion, but he has not once addressed himself to the Amendment. Is it not time that he did so?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order. May I make the suggestion that we shall be able to have many more speeches, if we have fewer interruptions?

Captain Crookshank: The only point I was making was, I thought, a perfectly legitimate point. It was that the Minister of Health—

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. Would it have been accepted in this House as a condemnation of a former Prime Minister, the present Earl Baldwin, if the fact had been brought up that his son was associated with the Socialist movement?

Captain Crookshank: The only point I was making was that five Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who are normally in very close contact with Ministers, have joined this revolution. I suppose that the hon. Lady is within bowing acquaintance of the Minister of Health.

Miss Lee: What is the relevance of that?

Captain Crookshank: I was only wondering what was the position of the Minister himself, whether he was a little wobbly on this issue.
The Prime Minister will, of course, have to deal with this Amendment himself and traverse both its nonsense and its non sequiturs. After all, it is his job, because it is against his Government that the Amendment is directed. It is a most serious step for any section of a party to put down against the Government an Amendment to the Address, and it is the

Government's foreign policy which this doctrinaire Amendment assails. I only wish to say this on behalf of my hon. Friends here. We, ourselves, utterly oppose this Amendment, and the idea which appears to be behind it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Certainly, and I will explain why very briefly, as I know many hon. Members wish to speak. We are utterly opposed, I say, to the idea which appears to be behind the Amendment, that is, that British foreign policy should not be based on clear British interests, but on ideological aspirations. Broadly speaking, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech in this House on Tuesday last:
The Foreign Secretary has done his best: And we on this side have given him whatever support was in our power—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 12th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 18.]
We have naturally criticised certain points; indeed, we have done so even during this Debate We deplore the Government's policy in Germany, and its incompetent handling by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We deplore the Egyptian negotiations as they have been carried on by Lord Stansgate. We deplore the vacillations about Palestine. But even so, even in spite of specific criticisms on specific points, broadly speaking, and taking the foreign policy of the Government as a whole, we have supported it and we do support it. The Foreign Secretary is working hard in a far from easy job, and if there is to be a Division on this issue tonight—and we hope in the public interest that there will be—we shall Vote with the Government, even though we are His Majesty's Opposition. Indeed, if I may use a paradox, we shall do it on this occasion just because we are His Majesty's Opposition, and as such are in a position of some responsibility. We feel that the Foreign Secretary in New York is having a difficult time, and should have the support of this House, until such time as he is—if he ever is—repudiated by this House. He should have support without having to look over his shoulder to reckon up what support he is getting. Therefore, we shall vote with the Government because, from the right hon. Gentleman's conduct, at least up to now, we know that in vital British interests he has been, and is today, the spokesman for Britain as a whole.
What is the Foreign Secretary trying to do? So far as I can see, he is trying to build up the power and the authority of the United Nations organisation. He is trying to settle the treaties on lines of fairness and democratic practice. He is trying to establish peace on the basis of truth, freedom and justice. These are all things in which we, just as the Government, believe, and that is the policy which he is carrying out. What is more, those are the things in which we believed together in the Coalition Government. The present Prime Minister and his predecessor, the present Foreign Secretary and his predecessor, all worked together to that end. Indeed, the Prime Minister went to San Francisco with my right hon. Friend to lay these foundations together. Seeing that that is what we understand the Foreign Secretary is trying to do, we also think we are right in saying that the Foreign Secretary today is not trying merely to obtain ideological results. So long as he continues in this way, we, as his fellow countrymen, will give him our support in these negotiations. We for our part will be no parties to stabs in the back from his so-called friends, however intellectual they may be.
There is a time to rend and a time to sew; a time to keep silence and a time to speak.
The least said today the better. Let this House by its vote today show to the world that this Amendment merely represents the ill-timed chatter of a few dissident and disgruntled Socialists. Let us see just how many will go into the Lobby in support of it. Let the House show to the Foreign Secretary that he has the good wishes of the great masses of this people, irrespective of party, in the laborious work on which he is now engaged, and to which, in the closing words of the Gracious Speech itself, we pray that Almighty God may give His blessing.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Nally: The speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) is a pretty accurate indication of the facts. We know that the party opposite is doomed and damned. It can also, as his speech proved, be pretty dirty on occasions. Let me begin by referring to the case put by the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). He said it was indicative of something wrong in the foreign policy of the

Government, when pronouncements by the Foreign Secretary invariably drew cheers from the other side and precious little enthusiasm from these benches. It has happened from time to time that the Foreign Secretary has come to this House to make pronouncements. Very often they have been tidings of tension and difficulty, mostly between ourselves and the Americans, on the one hand, and the Russians, on the other. Quite clearly, in these circumstances hon. Members on this side do not cheer, and hon. Members opposite do cheer. But the explanation is simple. Anything that makes the position of our Government more difficult, anything that makes the task of any Labour Minister on the Front Bench more arduous, will be cheered by the Tories.
I want my hon. Friends who are supporting the Amendment to realise that a party reduced to the state of the party opposite is bound to adopt a certain technique in dealing with this party and this Government with their overwhelming majority. So it will be tonight, when a reply is delivered to this Debate from our Front Bench. The general instruction will have gone round the smokerooms and tearooms to Tory Members that they must cheer their heads off in order to embarrass us. I am surprised to find that so many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who have signed the Amendment should fall for this preparatory school nonsense, put Over by the party opposite.

Mr. Zilliacus: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point will, he explain why if the Conservative Party, for the discomfiture of our party, always support our foreign policy, they do not adopt the same tactics in other respects and also support our home policy, so as to destroy us utterly?

Mr. Nally: Because in the case of the Foreign Secretary, it is always easier to argue on foreign policy generalisations than it is on home front details. The hon. Member's interjection allows me to continue conveniently to the next part of my speech. Those who have moved this Amendment, whose sincerity I accept without question, have attached to them various other people. They must accept a measure of responsibility for those people who are so attached to them. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) signs an Amendment—he has not done so in this case—it indicates


that he supports the mover of it. therefore, I think we are quite entitled to go through the list of names attached to this Amendment to weigh its broad merits.
Let us take, for example, the issue of Palestine. This is an important part of the world now being used as a cockpit for a struggle between the three great Powers. When we are talking of Tory cheers let the House remember this. It would be possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to go to New York. We could pack Madison Square Gardens with all the wealthy Jewish financiers and businessmen that we could find in that great city. If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne addressed them on the subject of Palestine, as he has addressed this House from time to time with great sincerity, showing great knowledge and skill, that huge assembly of American Jewish bankers and businessmen would cheer him to the echo. But that does not prove that his views are either right or wrong.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my hon. Friend allow me to assure him that while I have n6 knowledge whatever of what the New York bankers might do, I am quite sure that the displaced persons of Belsen would certainly cheer.

Mr. Nally: It is equally true that, if the Foreign Secretary found time to wander up and down this country addressing meetings, the greatest cheers would come from working class people and not from Tories. The hon. Member has signed this Amendment, but so has my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). The Amendment lays it down that we must begin applying a Socialist policy to this and that part of the world. Quite clearly, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne signed the Amendment believing that Socialism ought to be applied everywhere, including Palestine. So has the hon. Member for Ipswich. I am therefore entitled to ask why did not the hon. Members for Nelson and Colne and for Ipswich, both of whom have signed this Amendment, get together to discuss what is the Socialist policy in relation to Palestine, because they have returned directly contradictory answers? Before mentioning, as I intend to do, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus)

may I say this? Many years ago, I remember a party of obscure young Socialists, of whom I was one, who went to Geneva. We received at the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, and his wife, such kindness as I shall never forget, and that is one of the proudest recollections of my young days in the Labour movement. The hon. Member for Gateshead denounced any proposals that would lead to a bloc between ourselves and certain smaller countries, such as Holland, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries.

Mr. Zilliacus: In point of fact, since before the war, I have been advocating a bloc of the Western democracies. I have merely said, and I repeat it now, that it cannot be formed except under a world arrangement with the Soviet Union and based on the Anglo-Soviet and Franco-Soviet alliances.

Mr. Nally: That reinforces my point, because this morning another of the signatories to this Amendment has a letter in the "Manchester Guardian," which says that such a bloc can and should be formed without reference to the Soviet. I suggest that this shows that the differences among those who support the Amendment would seem to be as great as the differences which divide them from the Front Bench.
I must mention the misconception which has arisen regarding where our party stands in relation to the Front Bench. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment knows a good many things about foreign affairs. I have listened to him with respect, knowing that he has a wider knowledge than I have. But, when it comes to the working people, I venture to suggest to him that, so far as the working men in the average pub and the average club, of our land are concerned, I am in a position to tell him the facts of life. [Laughter.] I suggest that some of the hon. Members on this side of the House who are now rather foolishly jeering would do well and would learn more if they spent rather more time in working class pubs, than in attending gatherings of Bloomsbury Bolsheviks. Now, regarding the average working class man and woman, it happens to be true unfortunately, that the average man in the average pub and the average woman in the average queue believe that the whole root of the present trouble lies


almost completely in the tact, as they put it, that Soviet Russia does not play the game. I consider that to be an oversimplification, but it does happen to be the case that they think so. It is not fair or accurate to attack this party's Front Bench, and the Foreign Secretary, on the ground that it and he no longer have the confidence of a large and ever-growing mass of working men and women in this country.

Mr. Piratin: Does the hon. Member remember the Trades Union Congress votes against the Government? In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman is a journalist himself, is he not aware of the fact that wide masses of the people, who may have those views about the international situation, are not uninfluenced by writers like himself?

Mr. Nally: One of the papers for which I have worked and by which they are influenced is "Reynolds News," which I thought was in favour of this Amendment. Let me continue. The overwhelming mass of the working men and women of this country are, rightly or wrongly, behind the Foreign Secretary and the Government. But it ought to be more clearly understood how an agitation of apparent strength can be worked up against the foreign policy of the Government. Soviet Russia has this difference in relation to America. The Soviet Union is the only country in the world which has people of other nationalities in other countries, who are prepared, without any hope of reward, to die for it. And not only to die for it, but to lie and to cheat and to twist until they do die, if it suits the official line.
In this country, I have many friends in the Communist Party [Laughter] I repeat, among Communists in this country, I have many friends, and I was going to add before the interruption, the fervent hope that they will remain my friends after I have delivered this speech, although there seems to be some doubt about it. What happens? They, the Communists, conceive it to be their only duty, whatever office they happen to hold in the wider working class movement, quite honestly, genuinely and sincerely, to fake and to twist in order to secure a given result. Where Social Democrats are often weak, in relation to Communists, is that we still have a lot of what sometimes

appear to be out-date ideas about personal relations. If a Social Democrat pledges his word of honour on a political matter, there is some hope that he will endeavour, in some degree, to keep it. But the Communist, who is not, if I may put it so, in honour bound under his own special code of honour, will lie and cheat and twist if a result can be secured: hat will benefit his party. When we are talking about class votes at the Trades Union Congress, let us bear in mind that while, I have no doubt, there are trade union leaders who have used the card vote unfairly on occasions, they are nowhere near being as efficient in organising that sort of thing as are the Communist Party.
Let me conclude. I believe that the Government should be criticised about many aspects of their foreign policy. I think, for example, that some unfair criticisms have been directed at the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about Germany. Nevertheless I am convinced that, in Germany, all is far from being well. I am also convinced that responsibility for the tragic situation there lies not with the Chancellor of the Duchy at all, but in the Foreign Office and the War Office. I believe, too, that, in regard to Greece and Spain, certain things ought to be said. Certainly, the direction we have pursued has sometimes been wrong. We have been fundamentally right for a long time, often enough, and then have proceeded to soil that Tightness of our policy by our stupidity in actually operating that policy But all these things should be discussed, and the proper place for us Socialists to discuss and argue them is, I submit, in the party itself. Instead of that procedure, this is what has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry, who has moved this Amendment with his usual clarity and courage, surely cannot deny that, as far as the outside world is concerned, this Amendment is being interpreted to mean that at a time when the Foreign Secretary is carrying on negotiations in America our party is splitting wide open on foreign policy. Yet as I have already demonstrated, if all the Members who support the Amendment were got together in one hall and kept there for three, four, five or six days and asked to apply the Amendment to each part of the world, in all aspects of foreign policy, the result would be a Tower of Babel.
In other countries the impression is given of a hard core of growing resistance to the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. That is a travesty of the truth. I can only regret that by their action in putting this Amendment down, and moving it this afternoon, some hon. Members on this side of the House have weakened the position of our Government in some respects, although the mischief is by no means so great as is generally supposed. Members supporting the Amendment have given a false impression to countries abroad of what is actually happening in this country. Above all, they have made the gesture of the Amendment more important than the actual things with which the Amendment is supposed to deal. We shall now be forced not so much to discuss the merits of the matters raised, as to analyse the effect of this Debate on public opinion abroad. It is to be regretted that we are discussing this Amendment at all. I believe our colleagues should have withdrawn it, and I believe they ought to have discussed it more fully in the party before even putting it down. I believe that the Foreign Secretary and those associated with him in the Government are prepared to discuss these matters. I believe they are prepared to listen to the critics and are even prepared as they ought to be to take advice from some of them. In these circumstances, it does seem to me that the whole conception of the Amendment is mistaken. I hope, however, in view of the fact that it has been moved, that it will be taken to the Division Lobby to clear at least a little of the dangerous fog it has engendered.

5.12 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: Speaking in support of this Amendment, I first want to raise an issue that affects us in all parts of this House. The Prime Minister is not present, but I know that what we say will be conveyed to him. I hope that I shall never again be put in the embarrassing position of having a most serious matter brought before me as a Member of the House of Commons, and then told that I must not discuss it seriously because the Foreign Secretary is out of the country. I would ask hon. Members of this House to note carefully what is happening to the responsibilities of Members. We have apparently to make our decisions in

groups, in party groups, in family groups and in business groups. That is a complete departure from both the traditions and the responsibilities of the job that this House has to do.
I rise to express some most profound fears and doubts to which, I hope, the Prime Minister will reply. I am not raising them with one Minister, but with the Cabinet. It is quite possible in this House of Commons to forget that the issues of foreign policy represent the collective wisdom of the Cabinet, and that the supreme person in that Cabinet is the Prime Minister. If the Foreign Secretary is in New York, the Prime Minister is in London. If the Foreign Secretary, with the massive responsibilities he carries, cannot be blamed for not being in this House and America at the same time, will our Government either not bring such matters before this House at times when they consider they should not be discussed or withdraw this extremely superficial, demagogic argument that we must behave ourselves like a Reichstag because the Foreign Secretary is doing duty abroad.
We raise this matter simply because in the King's Speech issues of foreign policy are mentioned which affect a number of our men, and the industrial resources which have to be used for defence. That includes not only agriculture, mining and every domestic issue, but the whole peace and progress of our domestic life as well as the issues of foreign security. I would not lightly have intervened in this Debate. Some of us do not speak often and some of us have tried, for a long time, privately, to have certain matters righted. Our country under a Socialist Government is being badly maligned in many parts of the world. It is being sneered at for having run away from many of its Socialist convictions.
I want to put a number of definite questions to the Prime Minister and I hope he can give me the answers. I begin with what is perhaps the sorest point in this moment in a sore world. What is happening inside the British zone in Germany? There are cynical jokes running in Germany today. One of them concerns a man seen going into a turnip field. He is asked, "What are you doing? He replies," I am carrying out de-Nazification I am weeding out the little ones. "Another bitter one is based on the" Horst Wessel "song," Those who


starved before, still starve. The others are with us in spirit. "There is a great deal wrong with the way de-Nazification is being carried out in Germany. There is a great deal wrong with a situation in which people do not know where they stand in that country. But the broad picture that the ordinary German knows, and lives with, and suffers from, is that those who prospered under Hitler, the hard-faced business men of Germany, who did well during the war, can cushion themselves from hunger, can cushion themselves from the cold, can cushion themselves from the worst punishments, and the poor people, whether they were Nazi or passive, or anti-Nazi, have no such cushion. Of course, one reason why there is the greatest cynicism in the British zone in Germany is because that is where there was the greatest expectation There is stark hunger in many parts, but if you can go into the black market you can buy a pound of butter for 200 marks. If you are a worker in Germany, with only your labour to sell, you are lucky if you earn from five to ten marks per day. This House can work that out for itself.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why the Government have not, long ago, seen to it that banking accounts inside the British zone in Germany are frozen. Why should the banking accounts of the rich who have prospered under Hitler be among the few things sacred in the British zone in Germany today? How can we resist growing cynicism when things like that occur? The accounts were frozen very brutally in the Russian zone but it was done. I do not ask that it should be done in a brutal form in our zone. But I ask why these accounts were not frozen. I further ask why something is not done to stop the black market. The third question I want to put to the Prime Minister is, Why have we not carried out a capital levy? The experts tell me that this is not a practical proposition in the British zone alone. I ask the Prime Minister, Has the proposal for a capital levy been brought before the quadripartite Commission by the British representatives? My information is that it has not even been raised there I would be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give a straight Yes "or "No" in answer to that question. Our American friends have put forward suggestions including even that of a capital levy, but I am afraid

the American suggestion for Europe, as for America, would mean the immediate lifting of all controls, and a capital levy proposal is something which would, come in five or six years' time. But in hungry Germany, where the people believe that we are a vigorous anti-Fascist nation of strong principles, but with gentleness and fair play, why can we not do those things for which I am asking?
No one on these benches was more grateful or pleased than I was on the last occasion the 'Foreign Secretary spoke in this House, when he said that he wished German industries to be nationalised. If I had had the opportunity. I should have thanked him and congratulated him, although I do not see why we should be very thankful that our leaders discover things a long time after some of us humble back benchers. However, at long last that suggestion has been made; but do hon. Members know how that suggestion has been received in our zone? Do they know the complete cynicism with which it has been received? So far as the day to day life in Germany goes, all that is happening is that the ownership is vested in the British. The old managers are still there. Can we not do something to convince the German people that this was not just a harmless gesture, but that we mean it? I do not think we on the back benches should be called upon to make constructive suggestions. I think it should be enough for us to express our fears and doubts, and to receive answers. I have discussed this matter with Germans who share our point of view and our love of Socialism and democracy, and many of them, including those in the trade union movement, say, "If we had a little less support in words, and more action, it would save us from complete demoralisation."
I suggest that we should nominate certain German trustees who could hold those industries for the German people against the time when there will be a free election in Germany. I do not put forward that suggestion as the last word in wisdom, but I am trying, from this, my country, to make clear to the German people that there is something different here, that we have a Socialist policy, that on the quadripartite level, or on the bi-zonal level, they can rely on the voice of the British people to be raised on the side of Socialism. I am glad to see that there is a wonderful camaraderje among


the British and American officials in Germany, but they are completely overworked in trying to find out what their respective Governments are trying to do. I have found that the only people in Germany who are comfortable at the moment are those who are behaving like jungle beasts, and helping themselves irrespective of repercussions either on this country or any other country.
After a war, with all the hunger and bitterness it involved, it is essential for the future peace of the world and the security of nations that there should grow up a Europe bearing our Socialist ideas. Why has Dr. Agartz, one of the best men that Germany has produced, resigned? A great deal of criticism has been directed at the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think part of that criticism is the product of muddled thinking. The job of the Chancellor is administrative. He is not a member of the Cabinet. Vital decisions affecting Germany, which are influencing the mood of France, Czechoslovakia, Eastern and Western Europe and, in fact, the whole world are not made by his Department. They are decided by the Foreign Office. We have a Foreign Secretary in New York who, perhaps, is not aware of some of the matters which I am now raising. That is no criticism of him, and it is not said in any spirit of disrespect. It is not possible for any man to have an intimate knowledge of what is going on all over the world. It is not possible even for any woman.
I do suggest to our Prime Minister, however, that the whole problem of Germany is so serious that there ought to be a 'Minister in the Cabinet in London to deal with it. I do not think very much would be achieved by having a Minister in Germany. I have been told of the wonderful work that has been done by leading British administrators, but two things are lacking. One is a clear directive. This is not the first week or month of a majority Government in Great Britain, and the more I know of what is going on inside Germany today, the more ashamed and apologetic I feel. It is intolerable. I could give the House names and addresses of families who have had husbands and brothers shot, exiled or put into concentration camps because they were anti-Fascists, and who are starving and homeless now, and I could give a list longer than the list of the total membership of

this House of leading business men, some of whom were too arrogant to belong to the Nazi party—because Hitler did not go to the right school and did not have the right accent—who are still in a position of authority in Germany. I am not suggesting that they should all be removed, but we have to make Germany a going concern, and I am concerned that they should work for their living and should receive food and shelter and everything else according to what they contribute to the rebuilding of German economy.
I am not going to refer to Greece, Spain and the many other countries where we would like to see our Government pursuing a more positive policy. But I would like to put one more question to the Prime Minister before leaving the subject of Germany. I wonder if he knows that there was only one factory in the British zone which produced a tin container for food, and that that factory, which is in an area near a little town of 25,000 people, has been dismantled and nobody knows why. It has never been an armaments works and never will be. I do not want to keep the House too long but, in all humility—because this is a time when the only thing one can do if one does not know the answers, is to ask those who, presumably, ought to be able to give the answers—I want to say that, collectively, the leaders of Russia, America and this country have nothing to be proud of. We ought to have learned more from the war of 1914–18 than we did. The economics of our administration in Germany are the economics of Bedlam. The ethics do not bear examination.
Therefore, I support this Amendment because I know that in America there are free men and women who are as worried by the American administration—indeed, very much more worried—than some of us in Britain are, on aspects of our Government's foreign policy. Shall we be respected by Americans, or shall we be greater friends with them, if they think that in the British House of Commons Members cannot stand up in their individual capacity and say truly what they believe? Americans are listening to this Debate. They are not always as big fools as some people seem to imagine. There are able American journalists reporting this Debate. They know that those of us who are Communists, or democratic Socialists, speak not out of malice but out of an urgent desire for the good name and


security of our country. How are we to keep this country secure? Are we to keep it secure by withdrawing from industry a larger number of men than we can equip, or are we going to keep the country secure, because it has the love and respect of the people in every country in the world, who turn away from totalitarianism and desire sensible economic planning, and who look to Great Britain? There are Americans who look to a Socialist Britain for leadership. There are Americans who know all the dangers which face us. We want commercial arrangements with America; we want to be good friends with her, and we also want to be good friends with Soviet Russia. But I repudiate in my own name, and I repudiate in my country's name, that we should be a second or a third-rate Power. We talk too much about what America is doing, and too much about what Russia is doing.
We understand the many burdens which the Prime Minister has to bear; and he knows perfectly well that he has our confidence and respect. In the last year the Cabinet may have been too overwhelmed to attend to many major matters. We have to think of the food of this country, of its clothing, its future industry, and its relations with the rest of the world. We must have an armed force which is a respectable contribution to the United Nations organisation. But we have to take the right kind of risks. This is a dangerous world. We cannot avoid risks but can make correct Socialist decisions. Mr. Chamberlain thought he was playing for safety, and he got us into war. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in his time, thought he was playing for safety and got us into the Opposition benches. I hope our present Ministers, with their brilliant records, with the vast burdens they carry, will remember that their courage must be Socialist courage; they must have faith. I believe there are countries in which there are men and women waiting for the leadership, that only this country can give. I hope that tonight the Prime Minister will give us a definite and specific answer to some of these points that I and other hon. Members have raised and will raise.

5.33 P.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I listened to the speech of the

hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) with a great deal of interest. I must say that I admired the way he presented his case while disagreeing with every word of it. It was cogently argued, and he was obviously at home in developing the Social Democratic theme. I thought his speech would be followed by others of his hon. Friends who would expatiate on separate aspects of the ideology. But what do we find? The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has just voiced her special grievances on Germany. The seconder of the Amendment, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves)—so far as I could hear what he had to say—talked about American economics. The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) disclosed that both the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) were included in the Amendment. Why are they included? Because the group which put down this Amendment is full of dissident people, who disagree fundamentally with the Government on a multitude of different problems. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is included in the Amendment because he disagrees with the Government in disliking the Arabs. The hon. Member for Ipswich is included in the Amendment because he disagrees with the Government in disliking the Jews. For a number of different reasons, all of them at variance, the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentlemen opposite are included in this Amendment. I am glad the great language of Shakespeare and Milton was not chosen to describe this Amendment. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said, it is written in the modern, journalistic language of a Politbureau, appropriate to the collection of ideas and people it contains.
For a very few moments I would like to take up the theme of the speech made by the hon. Member for East Coventry. He was, I believe, during the war at the head of our German radio information services. If he was not at the head of it, at any rate he broadcast a very great deal. His was one of the hands that beat the V-sign on the muffled drum. He drew strength from the resistance movements throughout Europe; he added his own eloquence, and he made the night air ring with lofty appeals to a high Social Democratic aim and purpose. He


is a good European, and his voice must be very welcome over there today. The idea of his Amendment, and the effect of his speech, will act, I should say, like balm on the bodies of many troubled, wandering, homeless persons from the Rhine to the Ural Mountains. The speech will bring encouragement, as he intended, to the declining Socialist bodies throughout Europe. All this I admit and, in all humility, pay tribute to.
But the hon. Gentleman is also the Member for East Coventry. The exports of his city reach the most distant corners of the world. The livelihood of his constituents depends, and will increasingly depend, upon intimate trading ties with country after country, whose systems and forms of government range from social democracy to extreme authoritarianism This Amendment makes us an appendage to Europe. But we are not an appendage in anything except geography. We have ties of association, of a different and much stronger kind, with the great Dominions, the Colonial Empire, the United States of America and with the Spanish speaking Republics and autocracies. We are not a piece of the Continent, bound to emulate a Social Democratic ideology, whether virile or emaciated.
I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to believe that the fostering of international trade—yes, and the very maintenance of peace itself—does not depend upon the recasting of British foreign policy into a new ideological mould. On the contrary, neither peace nor the maintenance of our prosperity can be assured if we undertake a transformation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite often maintain that the foreign policy of this country for 1oo years past was an Imperialist foreign policy. Yet under it we became the greatest trading nation of the world. What we did brought untold blessings to mankind. Hon. Members object because our foreign policy in the war was a Tory foreign policy. Certainly, it was conducted by two notable Tories. Yet we won the war —or so it seemed in July, 1945.
I do ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to reverse the famous dictum of Clausewitz, and see whether peace is not foreign policy carried on by means other than war. Are they prepared so lightly to cast away men, methods and systems which have brought such great benefits to this

country, which have made us and our Allies victorious and free in two world wars, and brought about a whole century of economic expansion? Do not they see that if their object today was achieved, a fatal weakness would ensue to this country, a weakness so grave that we might not be able to defend our liberties again in time of war, and more important to the timing of the moment, not be able to prosecute in peace the liberal and liberating aims for which we fought the war?
Hon. Members have already referred to the fact that in New York the Foreign Secretary has been embarrassed by this demonstration—and we can hardly call it more than a demonstration. Does anybody deny that the Foreign Secretary is in New York today in order to achieve peace and to promote conciliation between the United States and Russia? What does embarrassment mean to him, except that he senses his power to do these things is reduced by what is happening here today? Hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that some ideological gain will accrue to this country by their action today. But the only result so far that I can observe —and newspaper after newspaper has reported it—is a direct loss of negotiating power for a leader of their own party. Of course, that is what the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) would like. He has scored a minor triumph which will be duly registered at the source and seat of such power as he commands.

Mr. Zilliacus: Would the noble Lord give way? The source of the power I command is the unanimous vote of confidence from my party in Gateshead.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Well, let that be. At any rate, to the hon. Member, social democracy is only a halfway house to something else. But I do believe that the hon. Member for East Coventry is a brand that can be plucked from the burning. I hope very much he will consult his constituents. They will tell him it is time for him to start beating the V-drum in the places where they are trying to sell their cars. Let him take a Lanchester or a Daimler to Cape Town or Buenos Aires, and the people there, the salesmen on the spot, will tell him what British foreign policy really is and ought to be. I hope an overwhelming vote will be given tonight against this sloppy and weak-


kneed Amendment, and that that vote will show to the Foreign Secretary in New York that the course he is pursuing today is not only honourable but right minded.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I am in some way greatly affected by the amount of attention some of my hon. Friends give to the fact that Tories, for one reason or another, will cheer some of the things that are said from our Front Bench. We all share this distaste for receiving cheers from that side. I thought that the speech that the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has just made proved something that I very strongly feel—that when the right things are cheered from that side it is almost always for the wrong reasons or from the wrong motives. I find myself now in agreement with the noble Lord about the way we should behave tonight if this Amendment is taken to a Division. We shall go in cheerfully together. But I am conscious that, while I shall be going in for the right reasons, he will be going in for the wrong ones. I ask my hon. Friends not to be so affected by the fact that Tories cheer some of the things we say. If we go much farther along this line we shall be elevating the Opposition to the place of Government. We shall be doing things they would like and not doing things we would like, and bring them into Government over here. It is a wrong attitude to take. If our policy is wrong, let us decide so, and do something about it; but do not let us start by asking whether they think it is right or wrong, and then continue by doing exactly the opposite to what they say they think.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), for whom I have a great affection and respect, as she knows, began by trying to deal with the point that was made earlier today about not discussing this in the absence of the Foreign Secretary, and, I believe, she really missed the whole point. It is not a question of whether her points about Germany should be put in the absence of the Foreign Secretary; it is not a question about whether the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister should answer them. The point, surely, on which I strongly take issue with her and her Friends, is whether the putting down of what is, in effect— let us face it—a Vote of Censure on the policy pursued by the Foreign Secretary while he is in New York, and while he is

in the middle of negotiations based on that policy, is right or wrong. That is the fundamental issue. We cannot get away from it. I believe that it is entirely wrong that this Amendment should be put on the Order Paper today.
I have recently, and for only the first time in my life, spent a short while in the United States of America, and I became very conscious of something of which I was not conscious before—the enormous and frightening influence the reporters and radio people, to whom my hon. Friend referred, have in that country. It is one of the most dreadful and frightening things to see the way the things Walter Winchell and others say are lapped up by tens of millions of people in America. These newspaper and radio journalists are not representing this as a series of questions to be put to the Prime Minister about Germany. What they are representing it to be is a complete split in this party on these main issues. The hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) concentrated upon the situation in America. He, and some of the other hon. Members who are associated with the Amendment, have reversed amongst themselves the whole business of what they have been concentrating upon.
Let us not get into the position of elevating an anti-American bogy to take the place of the anti-Russian bogy. So far as we are concerned, if the United Nations organisation is to work, then, quite clearly, the United States of America are one of the components, and one of the important component parts. I thought I detected in what my hon. Friend said this afternoon, that we were doing a lot of attacking and criticising of America, and using some very harsh words about America, instead of, or in addition to, using hard words about Russia. The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) referred to this. There is no agreement on motives or intentions among those who are supporting this Amendment. He mentioned some. Let us take the speeches of the mover and seconder. There was, in fact, no basis of agreement whatever between those two speeches. They were not even thinking in the same terms. One was saying we ought to be talking bluntly—both parties—to the Soviet Union, and the other gave a lengthy and rather weak explanation of what the Anglo-Soviet Union was doing. The hon. Member for East


Coventry gave us some comment on the history of the French Socialist Party and on the reason for its decline. I have not been in France recently, although I was there for a short time last year, and my sources of information, are not anything compared with his; but I should have thought that he was completely wrong about that. The main reason for the decline of the French Socialist Party is, surely, its divided leadership and the fact that its leaders no longer command the same kind of respect as the leaders of our party do here. That had much more to do with the French Socialist Party's results at the elections than what our Government was supposed to have done about Socialist foreign policy.
It is altogether childish in facing these heavy problems of an Anglo-United States alliance, and so on, to talk about our having a distinctive Socialist foreign policy, as though we could apply that policy in an absolutely perfect world; as though we never had to face a situation in which, when we have said what we want to do, someone else gets in the way. so that we cannot do it. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend agrees with me in that. So often it is assumed that we are not getting what we ought to be getting in the world because we are not pursuing a Socialist foreign policy. I believe we are not getting it because the other people who are indispensable to us at this stage are not willing to see it happen. It is they, in fact, who are going to give the word. Very often in all these things we are in the realm of assumption, because we cannot practise it no matter how much we believe in it. We cannot practise completely open diplomacy in the sense that we can tell everybody the reason for everything that we do, and because leaders can never speak as freely and frankly, without fear of the consequences, as can back benchers. For these reasons, when something happens we often have to make assumptions as to why it has happened. This does not apply to the hon. Member for East Coventry, but it does apply to the vast majority of people backing this Amendment. I shall be a very happy man when I find one of them assuming for a change that the reason is not failure on our part but failure on the part of others. Hitherto there has been very little evidence of any willingness to assume that others might fail.
Let us take the Amendment as it is, not on the limited plane on which my hon. Friend presented it, nor on the not quite so limited plane as that on which the mover presented it. Let us take it for what it says. It is an assertion that we have not been following a Socialist foreign policy in the last 15 months. I should have thought that we have been quite clearly presenting to the world a distinctive policy and offering a fair choice between the evils—if we so regard them— of Soviet Communism on the one side and American capitalism on the other. We can all set down principles by which we try to judge this and it would be a great mistake always to test our foreign policy by results, for the reasons I have just stated. It is much better to establish principles on which we think the policy ought to be based and test it by them. If we state that the corner stone of a Socialist foreign policy at the moment must be an intention to make the United Nations organisation work, as I think it obviously must be, I think that everything the Foreign Secretary has done would pass that test. If we say, secondly, that the test of a Socialist foreign policy is support for democracy, then I would have said that everything that we have done passes that particular test. [An HON. MEMBER: "Greece?"] Did I hear Greece mentioned? That is a first-rate example of our decision to stand by the forces of democracy.

Mr. Solley: May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions to test that statement? Is he suggesting that we have supported democracy in Greece when we compelled the holding of elections without any working class party participating, and does he say we supported democracy by introducing the civil and criminal Mussolini code in Trieste?

Mr. Brown: I deliberately opened a door through which I wanted somebody to pass when I referred to Greece. Of course it is complete nonsense, and untrue, to say that we compelled them to hold elections. What we did was to use such influence and power as we had to ensure to Greece the freest opportunity to hold elections they have ever yet had—and, after all, democracy does not only mean getting out of an election the kind of Government you personally approve of; it also means giving the opportunity to


get a Government that the people themselves want, and did in fact get; I think we get past that test.
I would put up as the third test the claims of subject peoples for self-determination. Just now I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies sitting there. I would have thought that this Government had done more to secure the right of self-determination for Colonial and subject peoples than has ever been done before. The fourth test I would suggest is one of friendship among the Big Three. I should have thought that, bearing in mind that we have to work in a situation in which many difficulties and obstructions are put in our way, it would be fatal to assume, as some of my hon. Friends seem to assume, that every geographical and other interest of Great Britain alters with the colour of the Government we get. Accepting that, it would be fantastic to assert that this Government's foreign policy failed the test of trying to get friendship among the Big Three. The reason for our not doing better is simply that one of the Big Three so far has not found it possible to agree that this is a permanent change of attitude on the part of this country and that they ought to fit in with us.
I wish I could go on, because I have never before addressed this House on foreign affairs and there is so much I feel I want to say. I want to say this quite firmly. I am in British political life first and foremost as a trade unionist and as a representative of organised workers in the trade union movement. My claim to say this may be challenged, but I will say it firmly and stand by it: I believe that, if I know one thing at all, I know the outlook of the organised worker, and I am firmly convinced that the organised worker is as wholeheartedly behind the Foreign Secretary and as wholeheartedly behind the foreign policy of this Government as he is behind their domestic policy. If I had had time I would have advanced' a criticism or two of my own, but they will have to wait. I hope that the Amendment goes to a Division, because I think the position of our delegation in New York in the present circumstances is a hopelessly unpleasant one. I would like to see the Amendment rejected. I am sure that it would be rejected overwhelmingly by this party, and it will certainly be rejected by a combination of the party

and the Opposition. The Foreign Secretary will thus be backed up by the workers who put the party where it is now.

5.57 P.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope the hon. Member on this side, whose vague and extremely effective speech was preceded by an equally effective article in the "Daily Herald this morning, which all of us read with great pleasure, will not mind if now: hat it is getting so late I do not attempt to travel in detail over his speech or his article. I would like to say to him that, interesting as his speech and article were, I would myself have been much more interested to hear those criticisms that he has of the Labour Government's foreign policy, which he found time for neither in the article which he wrote this morning nor in the speech which he has just made. After his wholehearted defence of everything that has been controverted by those of us who still feel uneasy and dissatisfied, I am wondering what points in Government foreign policy remain to be criticised which none of us who signed the Amendment have yet thought of.
I would like to say, first, something with regard to a point made by both him and by hon. Members on the opposite side, and by other Members below the Gangway on this side. I want to make it perfectly clear now that we do not propose to divide the House upon this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not;"] If hon. Members will wait a moment I propose to tell them why not, but let me first say that we do not propose to do it and, if any Division is challenged from any other part of the House, those of us who have put our names down to this Amendment will not vote for it; we will not go into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Logan: That is a funny way of going on, is it not?

Mr. Silverman: Nor indeed do we propose to be incited, provoked, bullied or sneered into a Division into which we have no wish to go. Perhaps I may explain to those who are new to the House and need the explanation, and to those who have been long enough here to know the position without any explanation from me, why we propose to take that course. A Division on an Amendment to the Address must inevitably be taken by


the Government—by any Government— as a Vote of Censure, and a Division which succeeded on an Amendment to the Address would inevitably involve the fate of the Government. No Amendment to the Address, carried to a Division, could possibly be interpreted in any way except as a vote of no confidence in the Government.
We believe that this Government is the best Government that this country has ever had. We believe that it is a very much better Government than any Government which could replace it. So far from wanting to defeat it, we want it to continue, and to go on not merely for this term, but for another term. We hope and believe that it has every chance to endure for a generation, and we would not do anything whatever to lead anyone to believe that, because of our anxiety and distress about some aspects of its policy, especially in the realm of international affairs, we are not convinced that, not merely does a Socialist democratic Government in this country represent the only hope of saving civilisation here, but that the triumph of these ideals everywhere in the world represents the only way of saving civilisation anywhere.
If it were possible for the Prime Minister to say—I am afraid that he cannot say it—that he would like a Division upon this Amendment on its own merits, and if it were possible for him to say, "We do not treat it as a Vote of Censure; the fate of the Government will not be involved; you may divide the House on this single question of whether these words ought to be added to the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, without any of the usual Parliamentary consequences of doing such a thing, "then, indeed, we should be glad to go to a Division, but I am afraid that in those circumstances the Prime Minister might be astonished at the result.
Why, then, have we put it down? We have put it down because these anxieties about the trend of foreign policy are widespread in the party, in the country, in Europe, and in the world. An hon. Member—I am sorry to see that he has now left the Chamber—said that we ought not to allow our opinions on these matters to be guided only by the fact that the Foreign Secretary's speeches

are cheered by the Tory Party. We do not. That, indeed, would be to give them a role to play in this House that is beyond anything which they have so far done to deserve. He misses the point. Our complaint is that the Government's conduct of foreign affairs during these 15 or 16 months has been merely a continuance of Tory foreign policy, and that the enthusiastic support which the Foreign Secretary gets, in the absence of any repudiation from the Government Front Bench, is confirmation that that is so. I am sure that no one on the Government Front Bench believes that there ought to be no difference between a Socialist foreign policy and a Tory foreign policy. The Prime Minister once wrote a book. He called it "The Labour Party in Perspective." I want to refer him to certain passages in that book, if he wants to know why so many of us regard it as a significant and depressing thing that not merely in this House, but in the country and the world, there is no differentiation between the policy pursued by the Government in foreign affairs and the policy the Tory Opposition want them to pursue.
What is the complaint? The mover gave expression to what, I think, would be accepted on this side of the House unanimously as a Socialist foreign policy. It is common ground that if world peace is to be preserved, it can be preserved only through the medium of world government, and if an attempt or an approach to world government is to succeed, it can only be by maintaining the alliance which brought us successfully through the war years between the United States, the U.S.S.R. and this country. Such an alliance seems much further off today than it seemed 15 months ago. Whose fault is that? If it is said that this is solely the fault of Russia, then are we not entitled to ask why that is so? This is the same Russia with whom we made a 20-year alliance during the war. This is the same Russia who fought with us through the war. What has happened in the 15 or 16 months since the General Election to produce that detrioration, that growth of suspicion, that growth of hostility and that impossibility of cooperation which has caused the uneasiness we all feel?
My hon. Friend asked some questions. He said that our policy had been in fact


what it is not in intention and what it is not according to declarations made from time to time by the Foreign Secretary and by the Government—that it is in fact an alliance with the United States. He asked three questions, and I hope that the Prime Minister made a note of them and is going to give us an answer. Suppose he were able to give a clear and specific negative reply to each of them, he would have gone, let me assure him, a very long way indeed towards removing many of the anxieties which we have. Can we have a clear and specific denial to each of these points? If the Prime Minister, in the speech he is about to make, gave a clear and specific denial of that kind, then that alone would have justified the action which we took in putting down this Amendment, because it would relieve the anxiety not merely of ourselves, but the anxiety felt in a great many parts of the world. If, on the other hand, he is not able to give the denial of that kind, if the answer to one or more were in the affirmative, I would say that all the more has our action been justified in bringing into the light of day a policy for which the Government have no mandate, a policy which would be regarded in most parts of the world as calamitous, disastrous, and one which would lead inevitably straight to catastrophe.

Mr. Henry Strauss: But this is not a Vote of Censure.

Mr. Silverman: I cannot understand the relevance of that interruption, but that is nothing new of the interruptions which are made by the hon. and learned Member. Is it, for instance, a fact that there is complete, or anything like complete, or substantial, military agreement between the two general staffs? If we had a military agreement of that kind it would necessarily involve a political agreement. It might well be the explanation of a fact which many of us find it extremely difficult to understand. Why is it that during the past 15 months there has never yet been an occasion on which the Great Powers have differed among themselves on matters of major policy in which this country has not taken the side of the United States of America, and the two have taken a joint stand against the view taken by the U.S.S.R.? Is it because the U.S.S.R. have always been wrong? Some people say, "Yes." If

that is the view which is taken it ceases to be possible to talk about a 20-year alliance, or any alliance at all, with the U.S.S.R., and all hope of maintaining the Tripartite Agreement between the three Great Powers, on which the maintenance of peace depends, will have disappeared.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: It is hardly true of Palestine.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know; that remains to be seen.

Mr. Paget: It is not true in any way. We were complaining that the Americans were joining with the Russians against us all the time up to Moscow. It was only after the Russian assault at Moscow—

Mr. Silverman: I cannot give way any longer. This Debate has a time limit. We have to finish at seven o'clock. The Prime Minister is entitled to his share of the time, and so am I. I say it is a fact that there has never been an occasion on which there has been a major difference of opinion between those three Great Powers in which Great Britain and the United States have not been on one side and the U.S.S.R. on the other. The hon. Member may shake his head as much as he likes, but the facts are there. If there are any occasions on which there has been a difference between Great Britain and the United States perhaps the Prime Minister will tell me, but so far as I know there are none. It may well be that there have been differences. There may well have been differences and criticisms with the United States which have been conducted in private and secret. I should have no objection to that if criticisms of Russia were conducted in the same spirit. But I think it is wrong always to make your criticisms in public against one of the two sides and make such criticisms as you have, if you have any, of the other in secret. I hope we shall never have to choose between an alliance with one, or an alliance with: he other. The future of the world will indeed be lost if such a division between two blocs was created.
It is not possible wholly to isolate the politics of this matter from its economics. One remembers well how, in the period between 1929–31, free enterprise in Wall Street brought down the whole economic


fabric of the civilised world. That economic crash was the immediate cause of so increasing unemployment in Germany as to convert Hitler's party, then on the decline, for the first time into a major party, the largest party in Germany. I have no doubt that the fact that there existed millions of Germans with dependants upon them, with nothing whatever to lose, had the greatest possible influence on the course of politics in Germany. I think it by no means far fetched, or fantastic, to say that had there been, in 1929–30–31, proper national and international control of the world's resources, and proper planning of those resources, not merely would Hitler never have come to power, but the war would never have occurred.
I am equally confident—and I say it with regret—that if there were another such crash, the effects of that crash would drag the whole world with them into despair. I have no hope whatever, and no one has any hope, that world peace and world Government can succeed unless it includes international control of the world's resources. What chance is there, at the moment, of economic planning it you link not merely our politics, but our economics, with America at this time? We have, as we said in a document which we presented to the Prime Minister, the utmost respect for the extent to which political liberty has been established in capitalist America, but we have intense admiration and affection for the Socialist achievements of Russia in the years leading up to and during the war, without which we could not successfully have come through the war to victory as we did. It may well be that in many parts of the world—it is certainly true of Russia, and may be true of many other parts—the road to political liberty lies through and beyond the road to Socialism and economic planning. Is it worth our while to throw the whole possibility of world government into jeopardy, in order to secure what we are pleased to call free elections in Poland, Rumania or Bulgaria? There are countries which are not yet ready for this.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of free elections in Poland?

Mr. Silverman: We had free elections in Greece,—or did we?

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Member in favour of free elections in Poland?

Mr. Silverman: We had free elections in Greece, or so we are assured. But is there any Member in this House who would get up and say that the result of those free elections in Greece had been to establish democracy in Greece?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The value of freedom of election is implicit in its own merits, and does not depend on the result of the elections.

Mr. Silverman: I say that free elections are only valuable as the method and footway to democracy. If they do not lead to democracy, they really have no right; there is no divine right of the party system, any more than there is a divine right of kings. Supposing you had free elections in Poland, and supposing that the result of those free elections in Poland was to bring into power a Government which had been at variance with Russia, not merely on ideological and economic grounds but also on other grounds, does anyone really think that the cause of peace would be served thereby or the state of the world would be more stable? [An HON. MEMBER: "There would still be free elections."] If hon. Members think that free elections for their own sake, and on their own, are so vital, then why could we not have them in Spain? Why do we go on lending moral support to our recognition of that Government if, in fact, we ought not to recognise any Government unless it is the result of free elections? Why do we go on recognising Franco Spain? The Spanish Government which we are recognising today is merely a Fascist Government, fastened on the necks of the Spanish people by Mussolini and Hitler and armed intervention. What right then have we to insist on Governments being elected in a particular way in the States bordering on Russia? Has anyone suggested that we should break our alliance with Russia because they do not have free elections? The truth of the matter is that each nation must work out its way to political liberty in its own fashion. We have no right to demand a standard at one end of the world for our own convenience, and refuse to exact it at the other end of the world.
I am being led away, and I propose to conclude by appealing to my right hon. Friend to do anything he can to reassure


the vast mass of the people of this country that our foreign policy will be directed towards taking the initiative and taking the lead, and that we shall not continue allow it to be merely a reprint of something done in America, on the one side, or Russia, on the other; I hope we are going to do something to restore hope to all those people all over the world who derived the greatest possible hope from our victory in the General Election last July. It may well be that there have been difficulties, for which this Government are not responsible. No one would have expected an overnight change of policy, but there are millions of humble folk in the factories, the mines and the workshops of this and other countries who are haunted by the ghosts of their fallen, who are haunted by fears for the future for their families and their children, who are looking to this country for a constructive lead, and who seek the only kind of hopeful lead in that kind of combination of political liberty with social planning which we are pursuing so successfully at home. Let us do something to restore to them that feeling of new hope which we gave them 12 months ago, and which we have failed to give them since. Let them see that we are not afraid to find for ourselves what is the right course, and are not afraid to take it.

6.27 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have listened with interest to the speeches made by my hon. Friends the mover and seconder of the Amendment, and I have read speeches made in the course of the last few weeks by some of those who have supported it. I have heard some of the other speeches delivered today. I think that this Amendment is misconceived, is mistimed, and is based on a misconception of fact. If I had known that all that was required was an answer to three questions, we might have been spared this Debate, because all my hon. Friends had to do was to come to me and ask me those questions.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in his estimate of what the people of this country and in other democratic countries are feeling about this Government. I think that he is projecting his own feelings too far. My hon. Friends have put down an Amendment in which they condemn

the policy of this Government as being not that which a Socialist Government would pursue. The underlying suggestion is that the Government have not encouraged collaboration with all nations and groups striving to secure Socialist planning. They seek to support this thesis by calling attention to particular instances in which they consider that the policy of the Government is wrong. In particular, some of them seem to condemn collaboration with the United States of America—or suggest that we should not collaborate too much—and suggest that instead, following a distinctive policy, this Government are being subservient to the United States of America That is entirely untrue, as I shall show in the course of my speech.
It seems also to some that we are showing insufficient readiness to collaborate with Soviet Russia. That is also untrue. There seems to be some third kind of thought in this Amendment hat we should form a blocor group of Socialist Democratic countries standing up as a counterpoise to Soviet Communism, on the one hand, and American capitalism, on the other hand. Let me state emphatically that the Government do not believe in the forming of groups and opposes groups—East, West or centre. We stand for the United Nations. There are two other feelings which find expression in this Amendment. One is that it is disconcerting to find that British foreign policy secures support among members of other parties, and therfore it must be wrong; and that there is a difference in the approach of His Majesty's Government to home and to foreign affairs. It is suggested that at home we pursue a Socialist policy, while abroad we do not. I will deal with some of the particular complaints, and answer some of the particular questions that have occurred in this Debate, though a good many, I think, have been answered before.
In my view—quite apart from a tendency to take a one—sided view of the facts where everything that goes wrong, or a great deal that goes wrong, is attributed to Britain—every gnat is magnified into troops of camels that are swallowed. The fundamental misconception here is of the nature and problem of international relations. In home affairs, a Government commanding a majority can, as a rule—


if they are all right with another place—carry out their programme subject only to the limitations of the conditions obtaining at any given time. But in foreign affairs, however perfect our policy, it can be carried out only in conjunction with other nations. We can formulate a most admirable policy, the policy which we think the world should follow, but we cannot get the world to follow it just by formulating it, because other nations have their views. We have to work with them, and sooner or later, with whatever particular policy we go into foreign affairs, we find that we are up against this question: "Shall I compromise on this point, or shall I refuse cooperation and break?" That is the question that every statesman has to face.
Take, for instance, our talks at Potsdam. Nothing would have been easier than to have said to the Americans or to the Russians, "I disagree with your proposals." Let me say, speaking from personal knowledge, that I have known large questions on which, as a matter of fact, the United States of America and Soviet Russia disagreed with us—quite large questions. Hon. Members are entirely mistaken in thinking that there is always a "ganging up": it is not true. It is quite easy to say, "I disagree with your proposals; I refuse to accept them." What happens then? There is a breakdown, and one goes home glowing with virtue, but leaving the world in chaos.
Take San Francisco. A great many representatives disliked the veto; we did not like it ourselves. The question facing us was not, "What is the ideally best constitution for the United Nations organisation", but, "Will you have a United Nations organisation with this disadvantage, will you have no United Nations organisation, or will you have a United Nations organisation without Soviet Russia?" Suppose we had come back from San Francisco and said, "We have all the nations in, but we are sorry to say we have not got Soviet Russia." What complaints I should have had from my hon. Friends below the Gangway that we were "ganging up" the whole world upon them. As a matter of fact we compromised and had the veto. Then, of course, we are condemned for having the veto. If this is so in major questions, it also arises in many matters of not such

outstanding importance. Compromise is the inevitable basis of any international relationship.
In these matters it is not just a question of obtaining agreement between the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the U.S.S.R.—important as they are. There are other nations to be considered. We may get agreement between a Big Three or a Big Four, but there are very many other nations we have to consider. I was rather struck by a certain lack of appreciation of the fact that there are more than three or four nations. The other outstanding fallacy underlying this Amendment is that of over—simplification of the problem—the idea that there is a cut-and-dried distinction between the nations so that we should collaborate closely with some because they are ideologically allied to us, and not with others. The fact is that there is a very wide range among the nations. Some, notably Australia and New Zealand, approximate closely to this Government both in their economic and their political conceptions. Others are nearest our political conceptions but further away in economy, and vice versa. In matters of economic planning we agree with Soviet Russia. In certain specific points of world economic planning, we find the United States in agreement with us, but, generally speaking, they hold a capitalist philosophy which we do not accept. When it comes to a matter of what we consider to be democracy—a matter of freedom of thought and of the individual—we agree with the Americans and disagree with the Russians. Is it not inevitable, therefore, that there should be clashes of opinion, and that in order that the affairs of this world should continue to march forward there should be compromise? We are, perhaps, more accustomed to compromise than some of those with whom we have to deal, but compromise is the basis of a peaceful civilisation. Conditions may oblige us to compromise and to yield to the views of other nations, even when we consider our own policy to be much the sounder.
There, again, we are faced with the question, "If you do not come to an agreement, what then?" Let me add that in these clashes more often than not it is not some matter of the interests of the United Kingdom, or even of the British Commonwealth and Empire, which is at stake, but the just rights of a small nation,


or even the very principles of democracy and freedom which we practise here, and which we wish others to have the opportunity of enjoying. There, then, is the way in which I think we must approach this question of our foreign policy and of how we are going to apply our principles. In all these matters it must be remembered that we are not acting as the representatives of an ideological abstraction but as representatives of the people of this country. Some of my hon. Friends are disturbed because the foreign policy of this Government is supported on various points by hon. Members opposite. How could it be otherwise? It was the previous Government, of which I and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) were Members, that made the alliance with Soviet Russia. It was with the right hon. Gentleman and other Members of all parties that we went to San Francisco and founded U.N.O. Our policy is based on support for the United Nations organisation.
It was, perhaps, the most remarkable thing in the remarkable speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion that he managed to get through a speech on foreign affairs, giving the Socialist point of view, without once mentioning the United Nations organisation. But, in fact, the principles on which this movement has always acted in foreign affairs—and I have been some time in this movement—have been that we work for a world organization, and not just for ourselves, or for one big Power or one small Power. We believe in international organisation in the interests of peace, and we work for international organisation for prosperity for the whole of the peoples of the world. That was accepted, I think, by the whole country when they accepted U.N.O. That is in the preamble of U.N.O., and since that is the basis of our policy, how can we prevent our being supported?
There are other points of policy that arise from the geographical position of this country and the British Commonwealth, and geography, of course, is not altered by a General Election. It is the same with other countries. In France, whatever the colour of its Government, there is always anxiety about the Eastern frontier. In Russia it is the same thing. She considers her frontiers, the Black Sea, the Dardanelles, the Far East and the Balkan Provinces. Not very much will be found to distinguish the policy of pre-revolution

Russia and that of post-revolution Russia. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong, but I am saying that these things are dictated by the geographical position in which a nation finds itself.
I rather got the impression from the speeches of my hon. Friends that they have got a theory and they stretch out for facts to support it. I do not think that they accept those facts which do not square in with the theory. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne quite honestly put forward the point that he thought it was always the United States and the United Kingdom against Russia. I tell him that it is not so but it is just a mistake of fact. I notice from a speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) that he had found it reported in a newspaper that the Foreign Secretary had had a talk with Mr. Byrnes. My hon. Friend jumped to the conclusion that we were "ganging up" with the United States. There are plenty of occasions when the Foreign Secretary and M. Molotoy talk together, or sometimes Mr. Byrnes talks to M. Mclotov. This is really the ordinary practice, and it is not an exclusive conference in private between members of the Big Three, because any of the members of the Big Three might have a talk with M. Spaak or any other statesman. That is the way all essential business is done.
What are the topics discussed? I have very slight experience, but believe me, it is not a clash between these two against another at all. Sometimes one statesman has a suggestion to make to another as to how they can best meet the wishes of a third. That third party may be one of the Big Three or any member of the United Nations, but it is not just "ganging up" whenever any Ministers are seen together. That shows the kind of suspicion which gets into the minds of people who adopt that thesis. The talks may be with a Social Democrat or with a statesman of other views, for in an international conference there must necessarily be talk with people of different views. It is said that we are often found voting against Soviet Russia and her near neighbours, and it is assumed that we are "ganging up" with the United States against Russia. But in these matters it will not be found that we have been "ganging up" with one country. An important matter is discussed on its merits, and not


infrequently we may be found, when the vote is taken, in the company of other democratic countries as well, both inside and outside the Commonwealth. Our Social Democratic friends overseas, I imagine, are just as good judges of our Socialist policy. I think if our critics examined the question carefully, they would find that when we have voted against Soviet Russia, although we may have been wrong on one or two occasions, we were generally in the right.
What we endeavour to do in these matters is to try to reach a just and fair solution. We put our case and it is voted on. Sometimes it is approved, sometimes it is voted down, but we go on trying to get the best results we can. After all these are democratic assemblies. We are working by the methods of democracy. We cannot get all our views approved. I notice there has been a great deal of complaint about our collaboration with the United States of America in economic matters. Large parts of the world are in great distress, including the whole of Europe. Who are the people who can help and who are helping Europe; the people who have the wherewithal to help us as we try to set the world and especially Europe on its feet? It is the United States, and is it not natural, therefore, that we should collaborate with the United States? Europe has been overrun, and indeed almost every supply has been stopped. Large areas of Russia have been made waste and that prevents her helping. Help comes from the country that can give it, and yet this help is called American imperialism. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, for whom I have a great respect, should have allowed himself to be associated with that.

Mr. Warbey: The statement that I made in respect of Anglo-American coordination was that it was a common practice for the British and American delegates to coordinate their points of view prior to a general discussion between the Big Three. Can the Prime Minister definitely say that that is not the case?

The Prime Minister: Sometimes it is coordinated with one lot and sometimes with another and coordination of views before going into conference is very, very frequent, though the partners vary. I was

dealing with another point made by my hon. Friend. Large parts of Europe have been succoured and kept alive by U.N.R.R.A. The United States contributed 72 per cent. of those funds and this country contributed £155 million. A very large amount of that has been spent in Eastern Europe. I have no doubt the people of Eastern Europe are grateful, but it is a fact that their representatives in Paris showed very little gratitude in applauding the accusations made that these funds were used for political purposes.
Let me give another example that was put today. The United States of America has concluded a commercial treaty with China. That was regarded as a terrible example of American penetration. I had not seen the treaty so I sent for it. I have looked through it. It is an ordinary commercial treaty, such as we make with other States, such as America makes with other States and such as Russia makes with other States. Why on earth should this be singled out as an example of American imperialism, except to support a preconceived thesis?

Mr. Crossman: It was singled out in order to show that the attitude of America and China was not dissimilar from the attitude of Russia and Eastern Europe.

The Prime Minister: I think if the hon. Member looks up his speech, he will find that he said it was a gross example of penetration.

Mr. Crossman: Exactly.

The Prime Minister: It is not a gross example of penetration to have a mutually convenient commercial treaty. Russia has treaties as well, treaties of all kinds, and they vary. I should also like to answer the other questions that were put by my hon. Friend. We are not pursuing an exclusive Anglo-American alliance. We were asked why we did not deny the Fulton speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me tell my right hon. Friend again that it is not the business of the Government to get up and make answers about speeches made by individuals, however prominent. It would keep us very busy. I should have to go through the right hon. Gentleman's speech with a hair-comb, because as a rule, in his speeches, I find something with which I agree and something with which I dis-


agree. If the hon. Member suggests that it has not been dealt with he is entirely wrong. The Foreign Secretary has pointed out that we have no responsibility whatever. I wish some people abroad would realise that speeches made by the Opposition are, quite properly, made on their own responsibility, and have nothing to do with the Government. Secondly, we have over and over again denied that we were trying to form an exclusive American alliance. If the hon. Gentleman does want it in black and white, I can say that if he considers the theme of the Fulton speech was the establishment of an exclusive Anglo-American alliance, then we do not agree with that point, and I really think he ought to have found that out a little time ago.
The next point to be considered is our collaboration with the American General Staffs. Surely people realise mat we are still in occupation, jointly with America, of parts of Europe? Is it so very strange that we should continue to collaborate with their General Staffs? Is not everybody aware that during the war we integrated our armaments to a very large extent; and is not it clear that if there is to be any standardisation, it is a matter that can be discussed? It is an extremely difficult thing to do, and it could only be done and implemented under the security arrangements which we are endeavouring to make under the United Nations organisation. The United Nations organisation looks, in its set-up, to this kind of collaboration in regions. Then I am asked: "Why have not you had a similar arrangement with the U.S.S.R.?" We should have been glad to have it; we have been trying hard to get one. In February last we appointed our representatives to try to get the Military Staff Committee of the Security Council going, and again and again we have invited our friends of the U.S.S.R. to come in. Unfortunately, they are still considering the matter, and they have not been able to come. But that is not our fault. We are trying to work it under the United Nations organisation. Why should it be thought that we are wrong if, in the interim, we have to make various arrangements, as we have had to, all over the world?
Let me deal with another word that has now been dragged in. It is said that conscription has something to do with

this problem. It really has nothing to do with this problem. No one is foolish enough to suppose that this country can measure up in armaments against either Soviet Russia or the United States of America. Our provision is for our ordinary defence; and, as contemplated by the United Nations organisation, for making our contribution to the United Nations organisation. Let me say that from such talks as I have had with our friends among foreign statesmen I do not think they would be awfully pleased if we said, "Yes, we will come into the United Nations organisation, but we are not going to put our armed forces into the pool." We have to make our contribution, and we are prepared to make our contribution. The idea of the conscription issue being based on that is entirely false—as, I may say, is the suggestion that in considering what forces we will have for defence we do not regard our own economic resources. We have to do that. As I stated only the other day, in considering the number of forces one has to consider the economic power at one's back. There again, a preconceived notion, leads the hon. Member astray.
I have said that our policy has been based on a policy which, I am glad to say, has been adopted by many people who do not hold our points of view; that is, the need for world economic planning for prosperity. I can remember the time —30 years ago and more—when I used to speak at the street corners, and that idea was laughed at. It has been one sign of the march of Socialist thought that in America, and in other countries, there is the realisation that if the world is to be spared the economic disasters which often lead to war, there must be economic planning. We have supported the various organisations designed to promote international collaboration in dealing with these problems. That is sound Socialist policy. We have always said it is, no good just dealing with the question of war when it arises. We must try to deal with the underlying causes of war, which can be done precisely by positive, constructive world planning. Surely my hon. Friend will agree we have taken the lead in that?
I regret to say that while our Russian friends come into some, they have not yet come into all of them. I would like to see them taking part in the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the International Trade Organisation Preparatory Commit-


tee, the International Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organisation. They have been warmly invited to come to all of these but have not thought fit to come, which is entirely a matter for themselves. Are we thereby precluded from joining with other nations in trying to build up these things which we need socially? It is the same with regard to the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe, with the coal organisation and the European Central Inland Transport Organisation. I claim that in cooperating in these social economic organisations we are carrying out Socialist policy. Yet we never get a pat on the back for that. Why do not people call attention to lack of cooperation by others?
We have encouraged, too, the Social Democrats in Austria, Germany and Italy, but we have not done it exclusively, because we do believe in democracy, and we do believe that people should choose for themselves, even if they do not choose our way. It is conceivable that a number of people might get together, even a whole nation, and might suggest that they do not agree with our kind of Government, that they could not work it, and that they wanted something different; they might vote 100 per cent. that for a whole year they should be under the rule of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. That would not be the working of democracy, but it would be the results of the working of democracy. That would be what the people wanted, and they would get it. Therefore, in Austria, Germany and Italy we have the position that all the anti-Nazi parties have the right to organise and express themselves freely. Nothing could be more disastrous for cooperation in the world than that for every nation, every great Power should select its own particular party as its protégé. It would very soon cease to be regarded as an expression of the will of a certain part of the German people, or of the Italian people. It would be regarded as an instrument of the occupying Power—and we know parties that are so regarded today, and we know what influence they have.
We are facing immense difficulties in the world, only 15 months after the end of a great war. No one who has studied history would expect the course of events to be easy, or that any Foreign Secretary of any country will have an easy

time. The attacks I have seen made on the Foreign Secretary are made often by people whose services to the cause of labour and Socialism are as dust in the balance compared with his. He has the full confidence of His Majesty's Government, and, I believe, of the great majority of the people of this country in all parties. I know this is shared by Democratic Socialists in many countries of the world. You know, Mr. Speaker, one meets foreign people, and one is perhaps a little apt to draw too wide conclusions from meeting a few people. I am quite sure my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) was quite right in his view when he reported what people in America were thinking. But America is a very large place, and one can only see a few people. Now I could equally report to the House what people in America told me they were thinking about this Government; but I certainly would not like to make any sweeping declarations as to what the whole of the United States was thinking about this Government. Let me say again, with regard to foreign Ministers and our Social Democratic friends abroad, that I meet a good many of them and that they do not express the kind of views held by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. On the contrary they often tell me how much support they have derived from the fact that we are facing up to things here and from what we are doing.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is responsible not for his own policy but for the policy of this Government, which is based upon the principle that we have proclaimed. In international conferences he has shown great skill and wonderful patience. He has been subject to grossly unfair attacks on his policy and to violent indictments and misrepresentations in this country. He has shown admirable restraint. I would not say anything today to make his task more difficult. I am in very close touch with him. I know how hard he is striving to get both our great Allies to work together. He has never been one for ganging up one way or the other but he has sought throughout to try to get results instead of merely the satisfaction of dialectical triumph. Nothing could have been easier than for him to put in a devastating counter-attack against some of the little men who are put up to vilify this country. He has a larger vision and a wider aim. I


have not the slightest doubt that if the policy put forward by my right hon. Friend on behalf of this Government had proved acceptable, and if it had been put into effect, the world would be a much safer and happier place than at the present time.
There has been an allusion to the position in Germany. If we had that for which we have been pressing all through, that Germany should be treated as an economic whole, we should have a far better position now. We have been pressing for that. Perhaps we kept hoping and pressing too long, before we agreed to go in with the American zone and the French zone. We have been criticised for waiting too long, but we still hope to get Germany treated as an economic whole. We are seeking to work with all our Allies; but I would say that if the policy of this Government as expounded by the Foreign Secretary had been put into effect, my hon. Friends who are now censuring us would have been giving us their congratulations. We have been doing our best. No doubt we have made mistakes, but I would assure everyone in this House that we are devoted to the principle of getting peace among all nations. You cannot do that by trying to divide nations up into sheep and goats and having relations with one and not with the other. You must bring them all in, on the democratic principle that all those peoples have the right to decide their own lives.
After all, it was Britain who took the lead in the Social and Economic Council. Britain gave the lead in submitting the Trustee Agreement. Britain showed the way in the announcement on India. Britain and France withdrew their troops from Syria and Lebanon. Why should we always be criticised? My right hon. Friend has the right to know where he stands. I hope that after this Debate my hon. Friends, who have ventilated their views—I am sure sincerely held but views which I think do not correspond with the facts and which are based upon profound misapprehension of the inevitable conditions under which foreign affairs are conducted—will withdraw their Amendment. It has been based upon a misunderstanding. Therefore the proposal that we should change our policy is wrong because we are today pursuing in the international sphere the policy of this party, which is based on international co-

operation for peace, social justice and freedom for all nations.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in my experience, is putting forward faithfully the policy of the Government. No Foreign Secretary, has, in all his public utterances, shown greater understanding of the interconnection of international, political considerations. The position of the ordinary man, woman and child is always in his mind. He puts forward the views of our party, which are both Socialist and democratic. He represents the characteristic British method of approach. He is not the slave of abstract theory. He is a practical man of affairs seeking to get things done. He is always fertile in suggesting ways of reconciling conflicting opinions. He seeks to serve the cause of the people every where. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed, but if it does go to a Division, I hope the House will show in no uncertain way that my right hon. Friend has the support of the House of Commons.

Miss Jennie Lee: Before the Prime Minister finishes, and as he has asked us to withdraw the Amendment, may I call his attention to a question concerned with Germany in which some of us are deeply interested? I would ask him this specific question: "Why do we not freeze the accounts of rich Germans in our zone?" What international commitment prevents us? Have we, I would ask my right lion. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

The Prime Minister: I really cannot make a long statement on that matter at' the moment. I can tell my hon. Friend that all these matters are under very full consideration at this present time. I really cannot announce anything before we get agreement.

Mr. Speaker: The original Question was—

Mr. Crossman: I feel that all those Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] —will feel that the speech which we have just heard was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. O'Brien: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Question put "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 0; Noes, 353

Division No. 6.
AYES
[7.5 p.m



NIL
TELLERS FOR THE AYES




Mr. McGovern and Mr. Stephen




NOES


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hobson, C. R


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Holman, P.


Allighan, Garry
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Deer, G.
House, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Howard, Hon. A


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
De la Bère, R
Hoy, J.


Attewell, H. C.
Diamond, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Dodds-Parker, A D
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Awbery, S. S.
Donovan, T.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Ayles, W. H.
Drayson, G B.
Hurd, A


Bacon, Miss A.
Drewe, C.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Baldwin, A. E
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hynd, J. D. (Attercliffe)


Baifour, A
Dumpleton, C. W.
Irving, W. J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J
Durbin, E. F. M
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Barton, C.
Duthie, W S
Jay, D. P. T.


Battley, J. R
Dye, S.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Beamish, Maj T. V H
Eccles, D. M.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Beechman, N. A.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Belcher, J. W
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Keenan, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Kenyon, C


Benson, G.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Key, C. W.


Berry, H.
Erroll, F. J.
King, E. M


Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Kinley, J.


Binns, J
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Kirby, B. V


Birch, Nigel
Ewart, R.
Lang, G.


Blackburn, A. R
Farthing, W. J.
Lavers, S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Blyton, W. R
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Legge-Bourke, Maj E A H


Bottom, A. C.
Follick, M.
Leonard, W.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Forman, J, C.
Leslie, J. R.


Bower, N.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gaitskell, H. T. N-
Lipson, D. L.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Logan, D. G.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col- W.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lyne, A W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gibbins, J.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O


Brown, George (Belper)
Gibson, C. W
McAdam, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gilzean, A.
McAllister, G.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A G
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle el Wight)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gooch, E G.
McEntee, V. La T.


Burden, T. W.
Gordon-Walker, P. C
McKay, J. (Wallsand)


Burke, W. A.
Graham-Little, Sir E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney. S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Maclay, Hon. J. S


Byers, Frank
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Carson, E.
Grey, C. F.
McLeavy, F.


Challen, C.
Gridley, Sir A.
MacLeod, Capt. J.


Chamberlain, R. A
Grierson, E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Champion, A J
Griffiths, D. (Rothor Valley)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Chafer, D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Grimston, R. V.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Clitherow, Dr. R
Gunter, Capt. R. J
Mainwaring, W. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Guy, W. H.
Manningham-Buller, R. E


Cobb, F. A.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Marlowe, A. A. H


Coldrick, W
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Marples, A. E.


Collick, P.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Marquand, H. A.


Collindridge, F.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Marsden, Capt. A.


Colman, Mitt G. M.
Hardy, E. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Harris, H. Wilton
Martin, J. H.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Harrison, J.
Maude, J. C.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Mayhew, C. P


Crawley, A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Medlicott, F.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Haworth, J.
Mellor, Sir J.


Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Mitchison, Maj. G. R


Cuthbert, W. N.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Molson, A. H. E.


Daggar, G.
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Monslow, W.


Daines, P.
Hicks G
Montague, F.




Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Teeling, William


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Rhodes, H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Morley, R.
Richards, R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Robens, A.
Thorneyoroft, Harry (Clayton)


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Thornton-Kermsley, C. N.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thurtle, E.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Titterington, M. F.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ross, Sir R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Moyle, A.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A
Touche, G. C.


Murray, J. O.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Nally, W.
Sargood, R.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Naylor, T. E.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Viant, S. P.


Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Wadsworth, G.


Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Walkdon, E.


Nicholson, G.
Shurmer, P.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Noble, Comdr. A H. P
Simmons, C. J
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Noel-Buxton, Lady.
Skeffington, A. M.
Watkins, T. E.


O'Brien, T.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Oldfield, W. H.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Oliver, G. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
West, D. G.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Paget, R. T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen


Peart, Capt. T. F.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Pickthorn, K.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Pitman, I. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stamford, W
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Poole O. B. S (Oswestry).
Steele, T.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Popplewell, E.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willis, E.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Strachey, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Strauss H G. (English Universities)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Proctor, W. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Woods, G. S.


Raikes, H. V.
Stubbs, A E.
York, C.


Ramsay, Maj. S
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Randall, H. E.
Symonds, A. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ranger, J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)



Rayner, Brig. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Mr. Pearson and


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Joseph Henderson

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of Order. I definitely noticed that three hon. Members shouted "Aye". Should not the third Member who shouted "Aye" have his vote recorded?

Mr. Speaker: If by any chance it were brought to my notice before the Tellers came to the Table, that an hon. Member had called "Aye" and voted "No", if attention were drawn to it, and he admitted that, then of course I should have to direct his vote to be recorded as an "Aye", because the voice governs the vote. To shout "Aye" and not to vote does not matter in the least.

Mr. O'Brien: Is it in Order for certain hon. Members to move an Amendment to the Address and, when the Amendment is put to a Division, for none of them to have the courage to vote for it?

Mr. Speaker: All I can say is that it is perfectly in Order.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: As there was a certain con-

gestion in the Lobby during the Division, will it be possible to await publication of the Division Lists tomorrow before calling your attention, Sir, to the hon. Member who shouted "Aye", in order to see whether his vote is recorded or not?

Mr. Speaker: The proper time is before the Tellers come to the Table. It is too late afterwards.

Mr. McGovern: I think there were only two who called "Aye" in the House, and they did so because they were democrats and wanted to prove it.

COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.

Main Question again proposed.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Yates: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
but humbly regret that it is the intention of Your Majesty's Government to embark upon a peace-time policy of military conscription be-


yond the date when the present transitional scheme comes to an end.
I rise to enter the second political contest tonight. I trust that the atmosphere will be a little more clear than that which has prevailed in the last few hours. The Amendment which I seek to move relating to military conscription is one which, it has been suggested in the Press, differs from the previous Amendment we have just discussed, in so far as the claims of conscience are acknowledged. The Prime Minister, on 12th November, made a statement in that connection. He said:
I am aware that some of my Friends have very strong conscientious opinions on this matter. I cannot argue. We have to face squarely the new conditions that are far different from those of the days before air power and long—range projected missiles.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th Nov., 1946; vol. 430, c. 43.]
I want to say that my case does not entirely rest upon grounds of conscience, but upon grounds of common sense. I believe that the imposition of compulsory military service at this moment is an outrage against elementary common sense. I base my case, in the main, upon five objections.
First, compulsory military conscription cannot successfully defend this country against atomic bombs and long—range projected missiles, and in that connection it is the Prime Minister who is not facing squarely the new conditions. Why did the Japanese capitulate immediately the atomic bombs fell upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because it was impossible, even with their great conscript army, to defend their nation from that new weapon. We might as well expect an umbrella to protect us from a shower of incendiary bombs as expect a conscript army to protect us from these atomic weapons. No battleship could stand a "near miss" from an atomic bomb, and no plane could last in a sky filled with atomic anti-aircraft shells. No, the future war—and we pray that it will never come—will be won or lost in the laboratories of the country. Mr. Brailsford, in a very admirable article in "Reynolds News" yesterday, made this statement:
Modern warfare is a struggle of wits between scientists, technicians and highly trained mechanised troops. Numbers and massed formations are useless against either rockets or atom bombs.
My second objection is that military conscription is an unpardonable waste of

the precious energies of the nation. The Prime Minister has referred to manpower. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in his speech last week attempted to influence the Government to accept a figure for the standing Army of 1,550,000 men.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Not for the Army—for all the Services.

Mr. Yates: I am sorry—a total for all the Services of 1,550,000 men. If we have Armed Forces of from 1,250,000 to 1,500,000, it will be necessary to have a similar number to equip and maintain them, and I say that is a colossal waste. The Lord President of the Council came to my native city the other day, and asked the city of Birmingham to work harder and join in the production drive. If we are to have the new Britain, all our human energies must be employed. We cannot afford this colossal waste of manpower at this moment. We cannot hinder social reconstruction in this way. The Prime Minister has told us that in previous years, the chief recruiting sergeant has been unemployment. I do not know whether he feels consolation in the fact that a substitute for unemployment is to be military conscription. I do not think that is very satisfactory. In any case, I am absolutely convinced that this Measure would mean an intolerable burden upon our overstrained economy. In my view it would be a grievous error of statesmanship.
The third objection is that military conscription is likely to stimulate, rather than discourage, competition in military preparations. In 1939 the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, when introducing the Military Training Bill, made this statement:
Nothing would so impress the world with the determination of this country to offer a firm resistance to any attempt at general domination as its acceptance of compulsory military service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1939: Vol. 346, c. 1151.]
I think that is a delusion. I do not think that Measure, brought in at that moment, prevented war. I rather think it stimulated the military preparation. At that time, it was the Labour Opposition in Parliament that challenged the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman, now the Prime Minister, led his forces into the Lobby against the Government, and tonight I seek to do that for similar reasons to those advanced by the right hon. Gentleman at that time, and on


principles which Socialists throughout the world have held in regard to this matter. I think it is ill-timed to introduce compulsory national service at this juncture. It is like thrusting a spanner into delicate international machinery, just at a moment when a measure of disarmament is being proposed, that we should reply that we are intending to add this Measure to our Statute Book. It raises a question throughout the world, "Against whom are we to have this conscript Army?" Is it Japan, at present disarmed? Is it against Germany, at present not only disarmed, but prostrate before the world, and helpless? Is it against the small nations? Can it be against America, or Russia? If it were against America or Russia, a war with either would mean the end of this country. I do not think we have had the facts upon which we can judge an issue of this kind. The Prime Minister and the Government ought to let us have the facts of our commitments and of every factor which has led them to the decision they have made.
My fourth objection is that military training inculcates a type of discipline which is the opposite of the self-discipline needed for a healthy democracy. It was very interesting to read the speech of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) delivered on 12th November, when he said:
No one can say there is anything undemocratic about National Service.
The Prime Minister made this statement:
there is nothing undemocratic in National Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 25 and 43.]
It was as though they had compared notes with each other on this issue. I do not think anything which denies freedom is really democratic. Conscription is a form of slavery—slavery to the State. I prefer the view that was held by our Socialist pioneer, Keir Hardie:
Compulsory military service is the negation of democracy. That is despotism, not democracy. No liberty loving people will tolerate having these old forms of servitude forced upon them. Conscription is the badge of the slave.
Hitler spent his life doing his best to make the soldier a man without in dividuality, without a will or a conscience, to make him a machine, a robot, willing to obey the wishes of his master. I believe that a generation subjected in youth to military training will find it much harder to play the part of good

citizens than those who have been nurtured in freedom and trained in citizenship. I would like to quote from two letters I have received. One is from a headmaster of a grammar school. It is rather interesting to have his view, and I have received many similar letters. He quotes from a report he made to a parents' meeting:
To take a boy of intellectual quality and drive him to mental stagnation over a period of years is sheer madness. In time of peace such tragedy should be avoided at all costs.
He goes on:
Life in the Forces constitutes much mechanised movement and very little real thinking. In leisure hours, men drift into the stream of looseness and idleness; all purpose vanishes and they merely wait for the day of liberation…I have spoken to many old boys in the past few years and all agree that the mental stagnation is appalling. It is heartbreaking to think that young men may have to pass through this purgatory in peacetime.
In this morning's post I had a letter from a Royal Air Force man in which he said that he was protesting against conscription, and also about the slowing up in the rate of demobilisation. He wrote:
Some of the men at my station have asked me to organise a petition of protest. Needless to say, in view of the complete absence of democratic liberty in the Services, I shall not risk six months detention.
I have had many similar letters. In fact, I have never had such a postbag since I have been a Member of Parliament, a postbag from so wide and varied a public, but with similar opinions to those I have just read.
My last objection is on moral grounds. The freedom to direct one's own life is the inalienable right in all matters which affect human prerogatives, but it is denied by conscription. There are many more objections, but I mention these as the principal ones. The Leader of the Opposition has assured the House that the Opposition support the Government in this matter. He said it would be the duty of the Opposition
to support the Government, and we shall certainly do so not only in this House but out of doors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 25.]
I warn the Government about that sort of support, out of doors. I am sure hon. Members will remember that the Leader of the Opposition was engaged during the General Election, not in supporting the Government, but in taking the opposite direction. In that, he was a far greater


asset to the Government than if he embarks on a campaign stumping the country in support of the Government on this issue.
I would appeal to the Government to defer bringing in this Bill pending the international discussions which are taking place, for I believe that if this country can be persuaded to swallow this very bitter pill it will be to their ultimate regret, for it is not, and will not be, a solution of our international difficulties. I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) when he rather separated conscription from general policy. I think that the solution of our international difficulties depends, in the end, upon a successful foreign policy, because it is, after all, the' policy which shapes the level of arms.
When one reflects how many of our Labour leaders opposed conscription in the past, it is a regrettable thing that it should be a Labour Government which should introduce a Measure of this kind., The present Minister of Health, speaking in the Debate in this House on 4th May, 1939, said:
We have lost, and Hitler has won. He has deprived us of a very important English institution—voluntary service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th May, 1939; Vol. 346, c. 2136.]
I cannot see that anything has altered or that anything has happened to cause a change of opinion, and I cannot but feel that our own Socialist pioneers, Keir Hardie, George Lansbury, and others, would at this moment rise in their graves to see a Measure of this kind placed upon the Statute Book. So I move this Amendment tonight in an attempt to prevent the spirit of Hitler from being impressed upon any Act of Parliament that goes through this House. The Conservative Members of the Opposition have a strange conception of liberty. They keep us up late at night—

Mr. Brendan Bracken: The hon. Member is free to go home.

Mr. Yates: —they put down Prayers to annul regulations, which they say interfere with human liberties, which infringe human rights, but the greatest infringement of human liberty—military conscription—they accept without demur. What a strange conception of liberty. It would appear from the Press that the result of

moving this Amendment will probably be to unite the Conservatives with the Government more strongly than they were on the previous Amendment. But there are others on the opposite benches, hon. Friends on the Liberal benches, who have a great tradition of belief in liberty. I appeal to all in this House to support the Amendment. I believe that future peace and progress depend upon the growth and the right adjustment of human personality. I appeal to my hon. Friends on this side of the House to stand by the principles, the Socialist principles, which we have held throughout the history of our movement
We have supported His Majesty's Government and the Socialist programme that has been outlined in the King's Speech, and we have often held before the House the programme we put forward at the last General Election, with the V sign on "Let Us Face the Future." But military conscription was not in that policy, it was not in "Let Us Face the Future," and my constituents never sent me to this House to support a policy of military conscription or military slavery. I am here tonight to protest at such a Measure and at this black spot in an otherwise fine programme. I yield to none in my support of the Socialist policy of the Government; but I am not prepared to support the Government in a Measure which is so much against every Socialist tradition. I cannot think it is necessary, it is politically futile, and I ask my hon. Friends to stand or fall with me by the principles in which we have faith.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is with great sorrow that I rise to do so. I think the greatest blow I ever received was when I was told by the Prime Minister that the Labour Party was bringing in compulsory military service in peacetime. When I was a young man, a member of a very religious family, I became a convert at the feet of James Keir Hardie I studied the gospel which that man preached, and accepted it. It meant cutting off family traditions and ties that were very dear. One of the things which he taught in those days, along with Bruce Glazier and others, was the evils of conscription and compulsory


military service. I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say last Tuesday. He said:
Our present position has been dealt with up to 1948 by the present provision for national service. It is extremely difficult to prophesy just what forces will be needed in the future. We cannot look ahead.
Later he said:
The Government's decision to continue compulsory service is not due to a failure of recruitment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 38-40.]
If it is not due to a failure of recruitment to what is it due? He then went on to say that it was due to the commitments we had today. One of these commitments—he did not put it in these words but he implied it—was that the United Nations organisation was already accomplished, and that we had to face the fact that one of its demands would be for a quota of militarily trained services. I wish to say to the Prime Minister, and to those who support his view, that I only wish that the United Nations organisation was an accomplished fact. I am afraid that he is far more optimistic than I am. When I look at the Press—it is only the Press we have to take for it—and watch the planning, grouping and manoeuvring that is going on in the United Nations organisation, I really begin to wonder if it is not going to die, like the League of Nations, except that it will die more quickly.
I want to know what our commitments are. I have looked at every important speech that has been made, and no one has told us what are our commitments. I hope that whoever replies on behalf of the Government will tell us exactly what they are. When I was a young man, and a follower of Keir Hardie, we had to fight a campaign against an organisation in this country called the National Service League. That was before the 1914–18 war. Many of the younger generation here will not remember that, but many older Members will recall the existence of that body. What was the aim of the National Service League? If hon. Members care to read HANSARD and consider the outline which the Prime Minister gave of the new National Service scheme they will find, on comparing that with the aims of the National Service League, that they are driven to one conclusion. That conclusion is that the brass hats in the War Office, who were

unable to shove this over in 1912, pigeon holed their plans and, when the Labour Government came into power, the same brass hats have again brought out this proposal. Here we have it in a new guise. Where did it come from? When inquiring into the matter to see exactly what pressure had been put upon the Socialist Government, I had recourse to the White Paper on the Central Organisation for Defence. In it I find:
The appointment of a Minister of Defence will relieve the Prime Minister of that part of his general responsibility…
Then it goes on:
There remains, however, the organisation for National Defence in its broader aspect, including both current questions of high policy in the sphere of defence and also the preparation of plans over the whole field of Government activity, both civil and military, for mobilising the entire resources of the nation in a major war.
Is it not obvious when one reads this Defence White Paper, when one discovers that the military, naval and Air Force heads are on the Council—

Mr. E. P. Smith: Will the hon. Member give the date of that?

Mr. Scollan: That is a quotation from paragraph 21, page 7. The date is October, 1946. Is it not obvious that what we have here, is similar to what they had in France when Napoleon was a successful general? In 1798, Napoleon introduced conscription for the defence of France. In 1813 Prussia introduced conscription for the defence of that country. In all countries when generals or admirals have been successful in a war, the one thing which they absolutely detest is to see their beautiful machine broken up by peace. Of necessity, that machine is not a thing which is simply designed. Circumstances create a military caste who are a danger to the civil population. We know how it works. One of the things which must have interested many hon. Members, and which certainly interested me, was the way in which the Russians behaved towards their most successful generals. "Uncle Joe" was taking no chances that anyone would become a Napoleon. When a successful general in Russia caught the headlines for a few moments, we soon heard that he had been eliminated and that someone else was coming up. Uncle Joe shoved them into the background.

Colonel Wigg: That was good for promotion.

Mr. Scollan: We did not do that. We pushed our fellows right to the top. The newspapers sent special reporters to wait for words of wisdom to fall from their lips. What do we expect of a successful general? Do we expect him to build up a Socialist State? Obviously, he wants a military State. Obviously the military caste are the people we have to watch the whole time. We had this fight in 1912, and the people won. Now the military caste bring out from the pigeon-holes and present to our Government, a plan for the old fashioned National Service League kind of conscription. In 1912 this is what they wanted:
That every lad between the age of 14 and 18 shall undergo military training in the school or in the cadet corps.
The schools were to be for the working classes who were to be the common soldiers, and the cadet corps were for the better—off class of people, who were to be the officers.
Every fit young man between 18 and 21 years of age shall submit himself for training each year.
If hon. Members compare that with what the Prime Minister told us, they will find it is the same scheme, for a full time voluntary Army with a full time staff and, over and above that, a conscript Army with special training every year after the initial training:
Every fit young man between 18 and 21 years of age shall submit himself for training each year in turn.
That is what the Prime Minister wants—

Mr. E. P. Smith: Would the hon. Member say from what he is quoting?

Mr. Gallacher: He has told us already.

Mr. Scollan: Thereafter, until the age of 30, he is to remain liable to be called up for service at any time. This compulsory training and service, so the National Service League said, was to be for home service and defence only. The point I am trying to make is that Governments may come, and Governments may go, but the Service heads remain with their plans. Much depends on the strength of the Government as to whether or not the Service chiefs get their way. I understand my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to reply

for the Government. I hope when he does so the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that this step has been taken on the advice of the heads of the Services. I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is possible to justify the introduction of compulsory military service in 1946 in view of our commitments. I am putting our commitments—not knowing them—at the very worst. Our commitments are that there are certain parts of Africa in which we are still interested and which must be protected. There are certain commitments in the Middle East, which we have not yet given up, and, assuming that the United Nations organisation is successful, we may have to give a certain amount of military, naval and air force aid in that direction.
Are these commitments as heavy as they were in 1912 when that scheme was brought forward? In 1912, in Germany, under the Kaiser, there was the biggest and most efficient army in Europe. There were a conscript army and navy in France and a conscript army in Russia. We must not forget that Russia was always a potential enemy. Who fought the Crimean war? Were not our commitments in 1912 greater than they are today? I think anyone who knows anything at all about this subject—

Mr. Asterley Jones: Would the hon. Member like to say how this strategic situation of this island has changed since 1912?

Mr. Scollan: If the hon. Gentleman had been present and heard the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) he would have known that my hon. Friend told the House that half a dozen atomic bombs would simply blot the country out, and no conscript army could prevent that. All that it needs are three atom bombs on London, one on Birmingham, one on Sheffield, one on Manchester and one on Glasgow, and the rest could go. I want my right hon. Friend to deal with that point.
The next point that I want to make concerns the campaign of hate that has been going on recently, and I am wondering if the Government have become "jittery" about it. There are a large number of newspapers in this country that have not been at all helpful to this Government in their foreign policy. A large number of newspapers are continually picking out some little point with regard


to Russia, or with regard to America, and are deliberately creating an anti-Russian feeling amongst the people. I have no time for the Communist Party, and every Communist in Glasgow knows that. I never had any time for the Communist Party. At the same time, I never lost my sense of proportion with regard to the Russian people's struggle to build up their own country. I wonder why, when the newspapers of this country tell us about the Russians roping in all the technicians, they do not tell us that, in the war, a special corps of Americans deliberately went out to catch the technicians, and take them out of the country. Of course, hon. Members may read about it in "Time," the American magazine, if they doubt it. They did not want reparations, or indemnities; they wanted brains, and they took them over to America, paying considerable sums of money for them.
The main ground of my objection to compulsory military service is a religious one. I frankly believe, deep down in my own heart, that it is an evil thing to hand over the youth of the country to the militarist people, to be trained in the Army. I believe that, and I am not the only one who believes it. There are many people who believe it. Let us take the case of von Papen. Here is Captain G. M. Gilbert, United States Army official psychologist at the Nuremberg trial, who interviewed von Papen. This is what he said:
Von Papen, baring his teeth and twisting his eyebrows, as lie always did when angry. continued: This evil suppression of individual freedom of thought. this contempt for everything that does not agree with the militaristic concept, this rigid attention to superior officers, this degradation of human dignity, this perversion of our youth—the people must be re-educated, entirely reeducated.'
That is von Papen, when he had had time to reflect on and consider the evils of conscription, and the brass hats. I do not blame Hitler for all these evils. When Hitler, the scapegoat, came in at the beginning, the militarist Jingoists did not realise that they had reared up a boss who was far too strong for them. For Heaven s sake, do not let this country fall into the same error.
Let us take today's "Glasgow Herald." Professor Einstein and a group of prominent scientists yesterday appealed for £350,000 subscriptions for education. This is what he said:


"(1) Atomic bombs can now be made cheaply and in large numbers. They will became more destructive.
(2) There is no military defence against the atomic bomb, and none can be expected.
(3) Other nations can rediscover our secret processes for themselves.
(4) Preparedness against atomic warfare is futile, and, if attempted, will ruin the structure of our social order.
(5) If war breaks out, atomic bombs will be used, and they will surely destroy our civilisation.
(6) There is no solution to this problem except the international control of atomic energy, and, ultimately, the elimination of war."

I want to ask my right hon. Friend, when he replies, to say if he considers it is fair, because we have a Socialist Government with a Socialist programme set out in "Let us Face the Future,"—and, when this Socialist programme is complete, we shall still only be 20 per cent. Socialist— is it fair to expect to create a 100 per cent. obligation, such as might be put on a nation that was 100 per cent. Socialist, when we are only 20 per cent. Socialist? I know that my right hon. Friend is an economist, and that this will appeal to him, because he does not believe in that sort of thing.
Frankly, I am of opinion that what has happened is that deliberate chaos has been created in the Services and I am very disturbed about it. I watched the former Secretary of State for War standing at that Box, and being shot at, from all sides of the House, while he was trying to give satisfaction to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen with regard to what was happening on demobilisation and in the various theatres abroad. It was perfectly obvious to anyone who had eyes to see that he was simply a puppet in the hands of somebody else. We are watching exactly the same progress with regard to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and also in regard to the new Secretary of State for War. [Interruption.] Yes, if hon. Members will watch, they will see what will be the result. They will see that the people who determine the policy will be the brass hats. They are the people responsible for bringing in conscription, and, for that reason, I am going into the Lobby tonight against the Government. I am not very happy about it, but I would rather vote against the Government than sell the principles of a lifetime.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I have had the good fortune to make some 36 speeches in this House, but, unfortunately, they have always been regarded by hon. Members as generally inaudible and, at the best, purely interruptions, so that the most that ever happened to them was that hon. Members assented to them without having heard what I said. I hope, therefore, that the House will bear with me if, in this new role of gamekeeper turned poacher, I say something which is both relevant and controversial, and, I hope, audible. The question has, at any rate, one great advantage, whatever its disadvantages, and that is that it will focus attention on the conditions in the Armed Forces, and it will call attention to the lamentable neglect of the Armed Forces which they have suffered under the regime of both the parties sitting opposite. I want to address myself principally to the empty benches before me, in the belief that what they lack in quantity they duly make up for in quality.
When speaking in this House on the Address, and later, I think, at a by-election, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) mentioned that he had done more for social legislation than many other Ministers. I think it is only right that one should pay tribute to what he did for the Navy. It is quite true that when he was leading, not the present party, but another, he did increase the pay of the Navy by 3d. a day. With the exception of this big social reform, there was no rise in the soldiers' pay for 117 years, and under the regime of both the parties opposite the soldier who fought at Mons was paid exactly the same as his grandfather who fought at Waterloo. At any rate, whatever the disadvantages of conscription, it will make certain that no such neglect is possible in the future.
Many of the evils of which my hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) and another hon. Member spoke, are not evils of conscription, but evils of the Army as it is at present organised. Therefore, one is particularly glad to welcome the declaration by the right hon. Member for Woodford that, in conscription, he hoped there would be no distinction between rich and poor. That, after all, is a considerable advance from the party which sits opposite. I will just look back for a moment. I am sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Horsham

(Earl Winterton) is not present because he sat in this House when three or four hon. Members of the party opposite voted when the Conservative Party divided the House in favour of the purchase of commissions. We find that just two Parliamentary generations ago that was the policy of the party opposite. I commend that Debate to hon. Members opposite. It is a quarry of arguments in favour of private enterprise, but I will say for hon. Members opposite that they were, at that time, under some practical disadvantage because what they were defending was not the purchase of commissions as such, but the black market in commissions or, as it was rather more tactfully put, that longstanding and tacit agreement among gentlemen to pay rather more.
However, I did not rise to make this point; I rose to say one or two words on a subject which I feel is of sincere and deep concern to my hon. Friends on this side of the House—conscientious objection. I am very glad that our party is broad enough to embrace conscientious objectors. I have had a lot to do with them one way or another, and I was actually engaged in a certain amount of parachuting with some of them. I believe that if the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) were present, he would bear me out on that point. I consider that many of the conscientious objectors of this war were some of the most loyal, gallant and courageous people we have had in the service of the State. But it is not that type of conscientious objection about which I really wish to speak; I wish to speak about the other type, that which I understand was, at any rate, favoured by the party opposite. I feel that when we are on the subject of conscription and objection, it would be desirable for them to clarify their attitude. So far as I understand their attitude when the matter was last discussed, while it was possibly improper to have conscientious scruples, it was quite proper to have political scruples, and it was quite all right, possibly, to refuse to do one's duty if one was, at any rate, an officer.
Let me recall to the House the circumstances when this rather surprising declaration came to be made by the party opposite. In 1914 there was some trouble in Ireland, and the Government, of which the right hon. Member for Woodford was then a Member—I do not want to go into


the rights or wrongs of these long dead controversies—decided that it was proper to give certain orders to the Armed Forces with a view to suppressing an armed insurrection, in which it was thought that certain hon. Members opposite were taking part. When this matter came to be discussed in the House, the Leader of the party opposite, at that time Mr. Bonar Law, said:
The House knows that we on this side have from the first held the view that to coerce Ulster is an operation which no Government, under existing conditions, has a right to ask the Army to undertake…And, in our view, of course, it is not necessary to say it, that any officer who refuses is only fulfilling his duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd Match, 1914: Vol. 60, c. 77, 78.]
I do not know whether the House will appreciate this conscientious objection. What the then Leader of the party opposite was saying was that it was the duty of the officer to disobey the Government. I think it would be desirable that we should have from the two hon. Members opposite and from the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply, a declaration whether this, like so much of the Conservative policy, is a doctrine which has to be abandoned, or whether Mr. Bonar Law's declaration still stands.

Mr. Stanley: Is it not a little unwise to talk about parties abandoning principles just at this very moment?

Mr. Bing: I do not know; if one goes to that length, one might, perhaps, refer to what the right hon. Member for Woodford said on this occasion in regard to the party opposite. He said:
There are those who say, 'We are Tories. No laws apply to us. Laws are made for the working people, to keep them in their proper places. We are the dominant class. We are the ruling forces of the State. When laws suit us, we will obey them. If they do not suit us so much the worse for the laws. We will not bow down to the rules appropriate to the common herd of British subjects. It will be time enough for us to talk about law and order when we have got into office…
And then, as the right hon. Gentleman might have supposed, he was interrupted by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
It is an infinite encouragement to me that my words can produce a salutary impression, however superficial or transient, upon the Noble Lord."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1914: Vol. 61, c. 1578, I579.]

I ought, perhaps, to apologise to the House for taking a little more time than I had intended, but interruptions have that effect upon me.
At a later stage we shall have an opportunity to consider the various questions in regard to conscription—the period for which it will be necessary, and the general conditions under which it will be necessary to impose it. It may well be that there will be those of us on this side who will make suggestions and even possibly criticisms. I believe that it is not really possible for Socialists to oppose the equal sharing of the "burden of national defence, and if this burden can only be shared through conscription we must accept conscription, but we ought to make it equally clear from this side that in accepting conscription we are determined to prevent it being used as an easy means to provide cheap manpower for a class Army. In saying that, I do not want to be thought to be making any criticism of the regular serving officers. I, like most who have played some part in the war, have known a great many regular officers, and there are many of them who have devoted themselves to their profession, with very little help, I may say, from the party opposite. I attempted to assess how much this assistance was, by looking through HANSARD of the years before the war to see which was the military topic which most occupied the minds of hon. Members opposite. I found, to my surprise, that it appeared to be whether or not the Royal Scots Greys should be mechanised. At a time when regular officers who could foresee the future were crying out for tanks and modern equipment, hon. Members opposite were concerned with horses.
We on this side believe that the new conscript forces should provide a career open to all the talents, and that it should not only be a period of military training but that a conscript Army should provide, as it were, a people's university. These are the aims of those of us on this side of the House, and when I look at the record of the party opposite—the prostitution of the profession of arms by the sale of commissions in public auction rooms, the subornation of the loyalty of the officer class to party politics, the consistent under paying of the Forces and the concentration on the picturesque to the exclusion of the practical—I hope we shall


be allowed to shape the new Army ourselves without any help from hon. Members opposite.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: The hon. Member for Hornchuch (Mr. Bing) is, I understand, what I think one might term a "customary maiden." He has made a number of short but apparently most successful speeches to the House up to now, but this is his first main effort. It is customary on these occasions that he should be congratulated by the following speaker, and I "most certainly do so. I think, though, perhaps when next he speaks and no longer enjoys the protection accorded to a maiden speaker—

Mr. Bing: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say a word?

Mr. Stanley: No, I am not going to. When next he speaks, perhaps he will be liable to more interruptions. But he certainly has amused the House very much, and I am very hopeful of future speeches from him. After all, during his speech he got from 1870, where he started, as far as 1914, and it is quite possible—indeed, we all hope—that in subsequent speeches he will reach as far as 1946, and possibly even project himself into the future.
I must confess to having considerable sympathy for some of the hon. Members opposite who are supporting this Amendment, and who, I understand, will take it, unlike the previous Amendment, into the Division Lobby. I do not know whether that is because they have more courage or because they run less risk. These hon. Members are not the revolutionaries of the party; they are not young men in a hurry proclaiming new and frightening doctrines; not a bit. They are the Bourbons of the party. They are the Members who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing, who have not forgotten that today they are only making, amid a frigid silence on the Front Bench, die same speeches which the Front Bench made in 1939 amid the frenzied cheers of their supporters. They may indeed be puzzled, as some of us are, to know what has caused this great change, because it is not only the war. The war, no doubt, has had an effect upon some of the leaders of the party opposite, and it is because of their experience then that they take this step now, but that does not apply to all. It does not apply

to the Secretary of State for War who was in his place a little time ago. In Blackpool, in June, 1945, when the war with Germany was already over, he disregarded the advice of his leaders and, in what I understand was a great speech, he used all his eloquence, sincerity and authority on military matters which he had acquired in five years with the "Sunday Pictorial" to denounce conscription.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? May I point out, first of all, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of War himself was on active service in both wars, and may I further point out that in the speech at Blackpool, although it is true that he expressed himself to be against conscription as a permanent measure in this country, he did say—and his words were used by the Foreign Secretary—that he was in favour of the continuance of the National Service Acts during the present emergency?

Mr. Stanley: I can quite well make my speech without the hon. Member's assistance, because I am going to quote to the House part of the speech to which I was alluding. The right hon. Gentleman said this:
Are we going to have a continuation of compulsory military conscription? I hope that Mr. Bevin will give an indication of our long-term policy on this issue.
Then, later on, he said:
A unique opportunity arises for Labour to contribute a positive peace policy. Conscript military Forces foster total war, and total war will lead to total destruction', both spiritual and physical.
Those were very ringing words. The right hon. Gentleman has since, of course, been converted. Somewhere on the road from the Winter Gardens at Blackpool to the Secretary of State's room at Whitehall, he has seen the light. We do not know how; we do not know why, and we do not even know when, except that it was not before the General Election.

Mr. Blackburn: It is quite consistent with what he said there.

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have a chance some time of explaining it to the House himself. I know the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) is more capable than any other hon. Member in this House of explaining not his own but other hon. Members' points of view, but we have a strange


liking—no doubt reactionary in our case—to hearing those from the Members themselves. When we heard that, unfortunately, the Minister of Defence was unable, as I understand, owing to ill health, to be here tonight, we had hoped that perhaps we should have had this reply from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, but no doubt when the Bill comes before the House we shall have a chance of hearing and seeing whether he explains his actions as well as the hon. Member has done.
On this occasion—and I repeat, on this occasion—we on these benches support the Government. When the Division comes we shall go into the Lobby in their support. After all, we are not tonight discussing a Bill to introduce conscription into this country. All we are doing is, in a way, discussing whether the Government shall have leave to bring in such a Bill. I believe that this Amendment ought not to be carried, unless the Measure was so bad, so indefensible, that the Government proposing to bring it in ought to be forced to resign before they brought it before the House. While, of course, I agree with hon. Members in that conclusion, I dissent from them as to the occasion. I think, on the other hand, that if the Government believe conscription is necessary for our security, it is their right and their duty to bring it forward, they should give to the House of Commons and the country an opportunity to see the Bill, to discuss it and to decide its necessity or not.
There have been, I think, two main arguments against the principles of the Bill. I only refer to the principles of the Bill because its necessity, its expediency, and its practicability will be discussed, and must be discussed, at a subsequent stage, when the Bill is before the House. Of these two arguments on the principles there is one which I understand but with which I do not agree, and one which I can neither understand nor agree with.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman cannot agree with them if he does not understand them.

Mr. Stanley: Unlike the hon. Gentleman opposite, I am not trained in a political school in which I am forced to agree with things that I may not understand. The first is the argument of the consistent opponents of military service, whether in peace or war, who believe that at any time

the obligation for military service—as has been said, I think, by the mover of the Amendment tonight—is an infringement of human liberty which should not be tolerated. I understand their sentiments; they are at any rate logical.

Mr. Yates: I think the right hon. Gentleman rather misunderstood me. I did not refer to the objection to military service—

Mr. Stanley: Compulsory military service.

Mr. Yates: Many hon. Members on this side of the House performed military service, and were prepared to accept it a:; an emergency.

Mr. Stanley: Then I exclude the hon. Member from what I have described as the logical section of the opponents of conscription, those who oppose it in both peace—time and war—time on moral grounds, because it is at all times an infringement of the liberty of the individual. To them I can only say that, the fact they are able in this country today to express such views without pain or fear of intimidation or subsequent punishment is largely due to the fact that for 30 years the majority of the people in this country have taken a different point of view. The other argument—which I confess I do not understand, and therefore do not agree with—is that while conscription may be morally justified in time of war, there is something ethically wrong about it in time of peace; that as a remedy it is all right as long as you wait till the danger has already arisen, but it is all wrong if you adopt it in time possibly to avert the danger arising.

Mr. Scollan: rose—

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. Here I must refer to a speech made last Wednesday by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I always listen to his speeches with very great pleasure. The natural rotundity of phrase, the habitual profundity of one, the occasional irrelevancy of theme, all unite to remind me irresistibly but pleasurably of Sandy Macpherson playing dance music on the B.B.C. organ. I studied his speech with great care and, as far as I can see, he does feel—because I know that in wartime he supported conscription—that, while it is morally right


in war time, it is morally wrong to introduce it in peace. With that, I cannot agree. I agree, of course, that there are difficulties in the practical issue: that the onus on the Government in time of peace to explain the necessity, to prove the need, is much greater, obviously, than in time of war.
But I cannot believe that there is any difference in peace or war on the moral issue. If it is right that in war the State, if it is necessary for our security, should call on us to abandon that portion of our liberty, then, I think, if the State feels it is necessary in peace time for our security, it is equally entitled to call upon us to forfeit it. I do feel tonight that, at any rate, prima facie,the Government have a case for leave to introduce this Bill. I have been long enough in the House of Commons to know that Governments do not introduce Measures which are bound to be unpopular, bound to raise difficulties, especially with their own supporters, unless they very honestly believe that it is quite essential to have them. Therefore, on this occasion, as I have said, my hon. Friends will be prepared to support the Government.
But I must warn the right hon. Gentleman that when the Bill comes before the House of Commons we shall need a great deal more time for discussion, and a great many more facts for our information than it has been either possible to give, hitherto, or than it would have been right to demand. If I do not propose tonight to discuss these matters of detail, it would be only fair to give to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government some notice of the sort of questions that, in the discussion on the Bill, we should feel must be answered, and answered to our satisfaction, before we could then renew our support. The first matter on which we shall require information is, the total strategic requirements for our defence. We did have a Debate on this earlier in the year. I think most people will agree that it was unsatisfactory. The White Paper on which it was based was extremely broad, gave us no real indication of the specific strategic requirements, and no information whatever of the numbers that would be required to carry them out.
The second thing we want to know is the real effect of modern weapons upon our defence requirements and, especially,

upon the numbers required for our defence. One can make easy generalisations about modern weapons, about rockets and flying bombs, and stress, and stress quite truly, the immensely increased dangers to which this country is now open. But it does not follow that those increased dangers necessarily support the particular remedies that one is proposing for them, and I confess that it is not easy to see the connection between the great dangers of the long range rockets and having another couple of divisions of infantrymen at Aldershot, or a great number of reserves in the depots.
The third point upon which we shall require satisfaction is, to be quite certain that the numbers required for defence are being reduced to their minimum by the use of maximum efficiency in organisation. Frankly, at the moment we are not satisfied that that is so. We have a large number with the Colours—somewhere, perhaps, in the region of 1,500,000; a far greater number, of course, than we ever had in peace-time before. And yet one does hear disquieting stories that, with that great number, there are, also, few ships in the fleet able to sail; that there are very few divisions in the Army on a mobile basis fully equipped for war; and that the air effort, for either the defensive or the offensive, if called upon at once, would not be of a very striking magnitude. We all realise, of course, that rapid demobilisation must cause temporary disorganisation, and that, therefore, in the first months of demobilisation, the efficiency of the Services was bound to be affected. But the peak has now passed, it passed some months ago, and we should be beginning to climb up the hill of efficiency again.
Here I do think there is some blame attached to the Service Ministers, or rather to the Prime Minister who has allowed the Service Ministers so little time to look after their respective Services. It would be interesting to know how many days in the last nine months there has been either a Secretary of State in the Air Ministry or a First Lord of the Admiralty sitting in the Admiralty. After all, if these Service chiefs are to be away nearly all the time, do we want them at all? If Under-Secretaries are to do nearly all the work, why should they not do it all? The Government could then save quite a lot of money which they could spend on


P.R.O.'s or some other useful people. We take a different view. We believe that although the immense burdens which fall upon the Service Ministers during the war have been lightened, even now their jobs are of immense importance, and what they do in their Departments may not only affect the security of the country in the future but immensely affect the individual burdens which are borne by people in the present. We therefore beg the Prime Minister, next time he wants to send a Minister abroad on some job or other, to ask the B.B.C. to broadcast an S.O.S. for the Lord Privy Seal and, when he has got hold of him, he can send him and leave the Service Ministers in their Services.
The next point upon which we require information, and I am sure the whole House does, is whether it really is impossible to get the numbers required by voluntary means. We had this generalisation from the Prime Minister that it is impossible, in times of full employment, to get the numbers required by voluntary means. First of all, is that generalisation true? I know that at one period this year the recruiting figures were extremely bad, but my information is that in the last few weeks they have shown an immense improvement, and that in fact there have been recently a large number of reengage—ments and voluntary enlistments. Further, I am told that a scientific inquiry has been conducted, I think by one of the markets research organisations, into the difficulties in getting recruits, and what it is that prevents us getting the numbers. Certainly, when it comes to debating the Bill, thy House should have that report before it, and know what prospects are held out for the future. Even if it is true now that you cannot get recruits in times of full employment, are we really to sit down under that and believe that the opportunity of serving their country is never to be able to compete in the minds of individuals with other civilian kinds of jobs? Surely if that is so, we must try to find the terms and conditions, and above all the security of employment after release, which will attract the people we need.
Lastly, of course, we shall want the fullest information upon the details of the scheme itself, and to be assured not only that it is equitable as between all classes of the community, but, and this I think

is very important, that it is equitable as between the people who will be called up under the new Bill and the people who are now being called up under the extension of the war—time arrangements. We do not want to leave them with a grievance in the intervening years that they are having a rougher deal than the people who are coming in in two years' time.

Mr. Shurmer: The grievance is there already.

Mr. Stanley: Finally, we shall want to be assured that it is possible to fit these people who are brought in under the new Bill into the schemes of the Services. Without having full details of the new organisation of the Territorial service, it is not easy to see how exactly that is to be done, and how during their period of service either with the Colours or in their training with the Territorials, the conscripts are to fit in with the volunteer Regulars. We shall require a reply to all these matters when the time comes. I am not asking for a reply tonight, because I do not think this is the occasion. The House and the country will demand the fullest information at a later stage, and all I can say at this stage is that when that time comes, we on this side shall certainly approach the subject in no controversial and party spirit, and that if the information given at the time convinces us that there is a national necessity and there is no other way to meet it, then however heavy the burden is, and it will be heavy, not only we, but we believe the country as a whole, will support the Government in getting it through.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) has managed to convince the House that on occasions he agrees with right hon. Gentlemen on this side without at all understanding the reasons for his agreement. I imagine that the answers to the series of questions which he put to the Government cannot possibly be in doubt. In the matter of the relationship between the long-range rocket and the number of soldiers required to defend us, and the further issue of whether voluntary means of recruitment have been exhausted, he shows by his views that he has no understanding of the reasons for the imposition of conscription; yet he announced to the Government that his party is going to stand in on the proposals.


Of course it will stand in because there are Bourbons on this side of the House as well as on the other, and the whole idea of the party opposite is to make this a vital issue of Toryism and to bring the Government up to scratch on an occasion like this when the Labour Party is in the difficulty of having to introduce conscription.
I will refer now to another speech which is of greater moment just now, and that is the speech of the Prime Minister in opening the Debate. He referred to certain very important considerations, and he was thoroughly frank in the way in which he said that the Government were quite ignorant about the international military situation, and about the extent of the military commitments which they would be called upon to undertake. He said:
It is extremely difficult to prophesy just what forces will be needed in the future,
and again—
We have got to make our contribution to the United Nations organisation. We do not know quite what that will be. We cannot foresee it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, J946; Vol. 430, c. 38.]
When he got down to the question of military recruitment and length of service he said:
I cannot insist too often on the tact that in all these matters we are dealing with a vast number of entirely unknown factors."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 38 and 41.]
We are certainly bound to commend the honesty and diffidence with which the Prime Minister approaches this difficult problem. We expect honesty from him, and get it, and I congratulate him on the way in which he has put these issues so clearly before us. But surely he will not object to me saying that we cannot accept these blanks in the mind of the Government as an adequate reason or excuse for the crime—for it is a crime—by which they mean to impose on the youth of this nation the loss of liberty which is involved in the Act that is visualised. The young men who must sacrifice 18 months of the best period of their lives, and devote themselves to the requirements of the barracks and drill yards, have the right to claim that the Prime Minister should have been clearer as to the reasons why the consequences of the Act which the Government have in mind should be imposed upon them. The young men who must make these sacrifices—and I would

put the period at two years, rather than 18 months, because there is the waiting time before call up, and the time spent on readaptation when they come out of the Services—are entitled to more definite reasons than any which the Prime Minister has been able to give for the proposed action of the Government.
We know what has happened. The experts have told the Government what they think ought to be done. I submit, with great respect, that the Government should have told the experts frankly that they could not give expert advice on this matter until they, the Government, could see more clearly what were the nature of the commitments required. Here is the stage on which the military experts ore playing, with the Government and the House of Commons blindfolded. Here is the stage where the military expert can win his way in the special situation which has been created.
I cannot forget—and I have said this before in tie House—that when conscription was first imposed on the country, just before the war, it was imposed for reasons which were ultimately explained to us by Lord Vansittart. He confessed, in an article he wrote to the "Daily Mail," that when he found the Government, his masters, unwilling to impose conscription he, a civil servant, the doyen of civil servants, used his influence with the French Government, who thought themselves free to judge an issue of British policy, to persuade them to tell the British Government that there would 'be a dwindling in the Entente unless Britain imposed conscription. This was the confession of Lord Vansittart. Although the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress thought they were free to decide the issue on its merits, they were not. The issue was decided by the experts, as it is being decided now, by the experts, behind the backs of Parliament. I suspect, as indeed the Prime Minister's speech has shown, totally inadequate knowledge on the part of the Government itself.
I want to ask a few questions upon this point. In the matter of the military forces—and it has been a reason suggested by many hon. Members on this side for giving their support to conscription—that force will be required to support the decisions of U.N.O. If this is the reason for its introduction, the thing


to ask first, surely, is whether U.N.O., as an organisation for securing peace, is functioning at all. I agreed that the Prime Minister, when he came to deal with this matter in his speech opening the Debate, was very cautious. He referred to the police force necessary to prevent the rise of aggression, and went on to say that we were not making such good progress as we could have hoped at U.N.O., but that, perhaps, was because the world expected more than was possible.
While I agree with the Prime Minister, I would go further and say that unless we have, first, some clear indication that we have a world organisation that can come to an agreement—an accepted agreement—on the issue of law and how that law shall be carried out in the world, we have no right to give this enormous power into the hands of such an organisation, which has not settled the first issues which should be dealt with. We have the more reason to take that attitude when we remember that when conscription—I wish that I had more time to develop this, but I have to take the claims of other people into account—has been imposed at any time in history it has not prevented war; it has regularly been the cause of encouraging war.
How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds makes ill deeds done!
The presence of a conscripted army has always been a great temptation, first to the diplomat, and then to the commander, to waste the lives of men. Does anyone deny that? Let them remember the exclamation of Napoleon when the French first gave him conscription. "Now," he said, "I can spend the lives of 30,000 men a month." And indeed he spent them.

Brigadier Mackeson: Is the hon. Gentleman accusing the leaders in this war of deliberately wasting men's lives?

Mr. Hudson: I say that Napoleon wasted men's lives to the extent, on some occasions, of 300,000 men a month, and anyone who has read Mr. Lloyd George's explanation of what happened at Pas—schendael and in Flanders need not ask me the question of whether military commanders here wasted men's lives. Anyone who knows about the wasteful profligacy of the German leaders with their conscripted armies will agree with me on this point.
To return to the question of whether the support of U.N.O. is any justification for the imposition of conscription: I must ask myself the question, "What are the military arrangements which require all the men for the support of the United Nations organisation?" This question reminds me of an old story about a man who wanted to impress his neighbours with his prowess as a horseman but could not afford a horse. He decided to go swaggering round the village with his riding breeches, spurs, and riding crop, until finally the villagers asked, "Where is the horse?" I ask from these Benches, "Where are the military commitments under U.N.O., where are the arrangements which at this moment give any justification for the military dispositions now being taken in this matter?"
I admit that when I turn from the question of U.N.O. I find myself with the Government in the general contentions that they have made about military commitments. After the speech that has been made in reply to the previous Amendment there is every reason to suppose that in country after country there will be less need of men rather than more. Let the Government take courage from their successes and the success of their Foreign Minister. Have they not done well in Indonesia; is there not a new arrangement there enabling them to withdraw men from that country? Have they not done exceedingly well in India and Egypt where, we are hoping, there will in time be fewer men? In Greece and Spain, although much criticised for the method they have adopted, have the Government not refrained —from making war—and I thank God that they have done so—and at least saved themselves considerable commitments there?
The King's Speech says that the Government expect to reduce arms in Austria; they now have a treaty with Italy and are able to deal with the Italian people without reference to intervening British military forces. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) that we are hoping that when we once get down to this question of Germany and really meet the Germans themselves—who are the only people who can deal with the problems of Germany today—it cannot be long before we are able to make very considerable reductions in the military


forces there. What, then, is the reason for embarking upon conscription? I think that the only possible reason that anyone can see is that the Government are falling into the error that they tried to prove in the speech made by the Prime Minister earlier today. It seems to be Russia which they fear. Yet when Russia comes with her proposals for disarmament to an international conference, we are beginning again to sneer at her just as we did in 1927 when, under Lord Cushenden's leadership, we superciliously rejected Mr. Litvinoff's proposals for disarmament.
I base myself tonight—and I ask the Government to face this—on the splendid proposal that was made this weekend by one of our leading publicists, Mr. H. N. Brailsford, who said that the time had come to raise the question of disarmament again. Of course it has. The Labour Party cannot be afraid of disarmament. Have they forgotten Arthur Henderson? Have all the fears the war created left their minds a blank about this also? Especially when Russia comes, to encourage us in this process, it is one of the greatest disasters to my mind that just at the moment when the proposal is made, we come forward with conscription and then leave the atomic bomb quite unregulated.
I have only one question to ask the Government on this matter. I will put it as briefly as I can under four main considerations. Can a Labour Government conscript the sons of fathers the majority of whom hated war and all that war called them to do, who hated Hitler because he loved war and all the infamies that grew out of it, who gave their lives to prevent the rise of monsters, and sealed with their blood the efforts that were made to rid the world of evil? Yet at the end they find themselves up against new monsters and against enemies but who were recently their friends and Allies. Can our Government impose conscription upon the youth of the country in such a situation? Can a Labour Government impose conscription on these men's sons at an age before their convictions have been made where they have not realised the relations between God and man, and have not worked out for themselves the central problems of life? Not only are they uncertain in their moral and spiritual attitudes, but their physical make-up has not become settled.
Can a Labour Government take every mother's son at 18 and put him into the barrack yard to train for actions, the central episode of which training is to teach the taking of life? Anyone can see the purpose of the training in the very exercises that these young men are given to do. Can a Labour Government that needs to mine the nation's coal, make the nation's steel, build the nation's houses and send up the nation's exports far above what they have yet reached, at least 75 per cent. above prewar levels at the same time carry through this conscription programme with its calls on the young manpower of the nation? In the document "Let us Face the Future" the Labour Government said nothing about conscription but now proposes to introduce such a proposal. I remember Keir Hardie, and George Lansbury who led the party in this House and Ponsonby who led the party in another place. I was with Lansbury and Ponsonby and the Lord President of the Council at a great meeting in the Albert Hall in 1927 which was held at the end of a campaign in which we were seeking to secure signatures to a statement that we would never take part in war again. This is what the Lord President of the Council said to the thousands of people who were listening to him:
I ask you therefore to dedicate yourselves anew to the great cause of international peace it is for you to let the Government know and to let others know that as far as you are concerned that you are finished with war and you will take no part in it either collectively or individually.
There are convictions clearly expressed. The Lord President was no boy when he said those things, nor was I. I was at the stage of life, as was the Lord President, when we could judge upon the nature of life's duties. He was asking that great audience to take its stand against war. We cannot throw off our convictions like a snake throws off its skin as it struggles and squirms its way to a new life. The convictions of men in the Socialist movement are of prime importance. I say to the Government, although conscription is in the King's Speech they should do what has often been done before and refrain, when it comes to the question of the introduction of this Bill, from going forward with the proposal they have foreshadowed.

9.12 p.m.

Colonel Wigg: I respect the views that have just been put forward by my hon. Friend. As I said the first time I addressed this House, I think no honest man could look at the commitments of this country and refuse to agree that conscription must be introduced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Shame it may be. By making a few calculations with a pencil and paper for a very few minutes, the commitments which we have to undertake, not only in our own Colonies but also in areas for which we are responsible as the result of our winning of the war, the size of the Army we must have to carry out those commitments will be realised—and those commitments cannot be met without conscription.
I wish to intervene in this Debate for only a few minutes, to protest against what I regard as the misguided, though sincere, views that have been put forward this evening. As I have said, I regard conscription as inevitable. What I want to do is to make the best of a bad job, if bad job it be. We have heard something of the horrors of Army life; of lads dashing along the roads stabbing at sacks of straw, and, during the process of time, becoming bloodthirsty monsters. Well, that is not what I have seen happen, though it may be that I am wrong. The point I want to make is that if the Army has got its horrors, so has civilian life. Let me tell hon. Members of one of the problems which the Army is tackling at the present time. In the intake absorbed into the Army in 1946, no less than 30 per cent. are partially illiterate and between one and two per cent, of the men entering the Army are completely illiterate. That is due not to any failure on the part of the teaching profession, but largely due to the effects of evacuation, and to the effects of illness. Although the Army must be essentially an instrument to carry out its normal functions it can also be adapted to making men better than they otherwise would be. The fact that we must have conscription gives us an opportunity to repair the damage that has been done to these young lads through lack of educational opportunity, and give them, while they are in the Army, an opportunity to equip themselves for the task of citizenship, and for the task of earning a living.

Mrs. Nichol: What are the schools for?

Colonel Wigg: The facts are that 30 per cent. of the men going into the Army at the present time are partially illiterate.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I do not believe it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Colonel Wigg: I will not give way. I will go even further and say that of that 30 per cent. who are partially illiterate—

Mr. Stephen: Are these the officers to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring?

Colonel Wigg: That, like most of the remarks from the hon. Member, is just cheap.

Mr. Stephen: My record in the Labour
movement will compare with anything the hon. and gallant Member has done.

Colonel Wigg: I still assert that the hon. Member's remarks are cheap.

Mr. Stephen: So were the hon. and gallant Member's remarks.

Colonel Wigg: I was saying—

Mrs. Nichol: Will the hon. and gallant Member give the proof of his statement that 30 per cent. of the men in the Army are illiterate?

Colonel Wigg: I did not say that. I said that about 30 per cent. of the young men going into the Army at the present time are partially illiterate and that one per cent. to two per cent. of them are totally illiterate. The present proposal will give the Army authorities an opportunity to remedy that state of affairs.

Mrs. Nichol: Will the hon. and gallant Member tell us what "partially illiterate" means?

Colonel Wigg: It means that the man is unable to write a simple letter home or to read a Part I Order. My proof is my experience when I was responsible, up to the early months of this year, for education in one of the biggest Commands in this country. If the hon. Lady wants a little more information perhaps I may say that of the 30 per cent. of partially illiterates 60 per cent. are from rural schools, 35 per cent. from Church schools, five per cent. from council schools. There is the further fact that 40 per cent. of partial illiteracy is due to evacuation,


30 per cent. to illness, 10 per cent. to the fact that the parents were wanderers, and 20 per cent. to large classes. My point is that there is unquestionably a tremendous opportunity, not only in the Army but in the Armed Forces as a whole, to use the opportunity of conscription to do what the Education Act of 1940 will not do until after 1950 when county colleges are established.
While the young men are serving in this country or serving overseas there will be a tremendous opportunity to improve them, not only in the interests of the individuals themselves, but in the interest of the nation. I commend this fact to those who oppose conscription, and I would add that conscription has to be swallowed anyway and that if we have to swallow it we must make the best of the situation.

Mr. S. O. Davies: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Mr. McGhee.

Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of Order. If an hon. and gallant Member addresses this House while you have been sitting here as Deputy—Speaker, is not another hon. Member in perfect Order in putting a question to the hon. and gallant Member to elucidate the meaning of his speech?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order. If the hon. Member desires to speak he must endeavour to catch my eye.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. McGhee: I am very worried that a Member of the Labour Party should take the view that it is necessary to draft men into the Army in order to teach them to read and write. I have always thought that was the job of our schools. However, I commend the statements of the hon. and gallant Member to the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education. I hope that she will look into them before the Government attempt to pass a Conscription Bill. I am confined to a very short time for my speech. I will not be able to make the speech that I hoped I would be allowed to, so I want to cut it down to one practical issue. This afternoon the Prime Minister admitted that we were carrying on staff conversations with the United States. I want to ask two ques-

tions on that subject. The first is: Is this policy of conscription the result of those conversations? If it is, there are some here who remember that similar staff conversations were carried on with the French Government before the 1914 war.
We further want to know against whom these staff conversations are directed. It is no use the Prime Minister or anybody else coming to the House and telling us that we are just doing this for sheer defence reasons and not telling us against whom we have to defend ourselves. Is it Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Eire or some other neutral country? Surely it cannot be one of our Allies before we have even made the peace treaties. I warn the right hon. Gentleman who is replying to this Debate against the Imperial Staff. Seldom have I agreed with anything the late David Lloyd George said, but I do agree with him when he said that they are always wrong and always give wrong advice. As a matter of fact, they have always been a war behindhand. In 1898 they were preparing for the Crimean war; in 1914 they were preparing for the South African war; in 1939 they were preparing for the 1914 war; and at this very moment talking about using conscripts against the atomic bomb shows that they have no conception of present problems. In his speech the other day the Prime Minister said that we were taking the young men into the Army and giving them splendid teaching in citizenship. That is not the business of the Army. The Prime Minister also said that we were teaching the young men A.R.P. What will that teach them—to use stirrup pumps against atomic bombs? Is that a new scheme which the conscript Army has to face?
I want the Government to re-examine this problem. I ask them to defer this problem until we really know what our commitments are. To take such a high percentage of our young men out of production and to put them in the Army will help to delay this country's recovery from the devastation of the last war. I beg the Government to reconsider the whole problem of our commitments, realising that we are now under a new Government backed by a huge majority of the people of the country, and also realising that we are no longer a great Imperialistic Power jackbooting half over the world. I plead


with my right hon. Friend to give those of us who feel deeply on this subject some hope that the whole matter will be reconsidered before the Government attempt to introduce a Bill.

9.24 p.m.

Professor Gruffydd: May I explain that I am not and never have been a conscientious objector; I do not intend in the future to be one, but that I object as a conscientious objector to every form of conscription. I have, as a matter of fact, in common with other Members of my party who have put their names to this Amendment, served as a volunteer in His Majesty's Forces, and if I had been young enough, I should have done so in this last war. My objection is not to military service of any kind, but the compulsion to send our young men—and our young women, I suppose, in time if this goes through—to undergo military service under State compulsion.
When an undistinguished back bencher like myself voices an opinion that is unpopular or says something that only corresponds to what a minority in the House thinks, it must not be assumed that he speaks for a minority in the country, because of one thing I am convinced—although I am speaking now for a minority in this House, I am speaking for a majority in the country. I am so convinced of that that I make bold to ask this question of the Government and of the party opposite. If they had said in their election addresses that they were going to back conscription or even allow conscription, would a single solitary one of them have been returned to his House by Labour votes? If they had been returned at all they would have been returned by Conservative votes. The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) said just now that the Tory Party would follow the Government this time into the Lobby. Really, that is not the case at all—it is the Government who will follow the Tory Party into the Lobby.
I read in the Press in more than one paper that the Government are not over—perturbed by the very large number of their Members who have expressed themselves against conscription, because they say that they do not mind the kind of rebellion that is based on conscience. I would like to examine this word "conscience" before I sit down. I had intended to say a good deal more, but I

want to say this: conscience does not change. There are among the Members of the Government and the Members of their party people who were conscientious objectors in the past, but I do not see their names to this Amendment. The line from one of Shakespeare's sonnets his already been quoted in this House:
Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds.
—and conviction is not conviction which alters according to circumstances. I think there is an uglier side to it even than that. Am I to suppose—and I ask this question very seriously—that these gentlemen are conscientious objectors when they are young enough to serve in the Army themselves, but when they are over military age have no conscientious objection to forcing other people to serve? That is a serious question, seriously asked, and I ask them to put it to their consciences, and lay their hands upon their hearts and answer it in the only way it can be answered, and that is by voting for the Amendment.
I am asked—and this is the last thing I am going to say— "What are you going to do in the face of the difficulties of the country now unless we have conscription?" Many things have been said and I am only going to mention one or two. First of all, let us cease to behave as if we in Britain were the greatest Power on earth; let us cease to behave as if the fate of all other nations were in our hands. We are not the greatest military power in the world; we have long ceased to be that, but we are still, I am convinced, the greatest moral power in the world, and we shall only keep that moral leadership as long as we preserve the old ideas of freedom and humanity, Liberalism, alive, and they cannot be kept alive in a conscript country. When conscription comes in, and that conscription is coming in I make no doubt, for I know that I am speaking against the tide in this House anyway, conscription is coming in—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, you wait."] When conscription comes in, may I ask who is going to be conscribed? We cannot conscribe the mineworkers; there are not enough of them already. We cannot conscribe the building workers or the steel workers or the civil servant, particularly not them. We are going to conscribe the bank clerks, the teachers, the salesmen, and university students, the most unmilitary part of the population, because they


are the only people who will be available at the time.
What is the alternative? It is to reform the Army, and the Army very badly needs reforming. Some suggestions have already been made, but I am now going to make some unpopular suggestions, something which no gentleman ever does. Take away the tyranny of the sergeant major, the sergeant major, who, to my own knowledge, has made life a hell for so many young men. That is one way. Secondly, take the padres in the Army out of the ranks of officers. Let them follow their sacred profession without being officers. Give them authority to inquire into the grievances of the men and to report sympathetically upon them.

Captain Marsden: The hon. Member served in the Navy, and he knows, as he is talking of conscription generally, that in the Navy the chaplains have no rank at all.

Professor Gruffydd: If the hon. and gallant Member had allowed me, I was going to hold up the Navy as a model in that respect. I think I have probably said enough to show where the Liberal Party stand in this matter. The Liberal Party stand, as they have always stood, against tyranny of the State over the individual. The worst tyranny of all which the State can possibly exercise over the individual is the tyranny over the soul which comes from unwilling military discipline and conscription.

9.33 p.m.

Brigadier Head: In the very short time afforded to me, I would like, curiously enough, to do what I can to help the mover and seconder of the Amendment. I believe that the solution of the problem we are discussing tonight would be to get more voluntary recruits to the Army. In the two minutes which is the time you have allowed me, Sir, I cannot range very widely over this subject. But to take one parochial point only, we have today in the British Army, for instance, the Brigade of Guards. At the moment they are the only formation in the British Army which can get all the recruits they want and more. But what is His Majesty's Government's policy? It is to reduce the Brigade from 12 to eight battalions. They stick a large steel pin into the only balloon they have in the

British Army. That is the only point on which I support the mover and seconder of the Amendment. If we pursue such a policy in relation to the part of the Army in which we have recruitment built up on the conditions of esprit de corps,and fail to support something which is a going concern, we are doing everything possible to ensure the necessity for conscription during the next 20, 30, or even 50 years.

9.35 P.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, the Minister-designate of Defence, would have replied to this Debate, and had prepared himself to do so, but unfortunately, as I think the House knows, he has been taken ill and is unable to be here today. Therefore, it falls to me to speak in his place. Many questions of detail on this matter will fall to be discussed later on. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) quite reasonably said that when the Bill came before the House later, there were many questions of detail on which he would like to raise questions, and on which hon. Friends of mine on this side of the House would like to raise questions. That, we fully concede. I shall not tonight discuss any of these questions of detail. I shall present only the general argument against the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lady wood (Mr. Yates).
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee), speaking later, asked me to give an assurance that the whole matter would be reconsidered. I give him an assurance that when the Bill is brought in, all the details will be open to consideration, debate and discussion. I give that assurance, and I hope that will suffice. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If, that will not suffice, we will go to a Division, and see who wins. I am endeavouring to be conciliatory to my hon. Friend, but if he will not respond in the same spirit, it must be settled in the Lobbies. I repeat that all the details will be for consideration and discussion when the Bill is brought in.

Mrs. Florence Paton: It is the principle we are against.

Mr. Dalton: Exactly. It is on that we shall vote, those against the principle on the one side, and those for the principle on the other. I am arguing for the vote in favour. I am making this abundantly


clear I think my hon. Friends will agree that I always endeavour to state the case clearly, whether or not they agree with me. I am asking my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and the House at large, to vote tonight in favour of the principle of the continuance of compulsory military service for a certain period—[Interruption.]—let me finish—not yet able to be defined, beyond the date of 1st January, 1949. That is the issue; I am stating it with great precision. The issue is just as simple as that. Shall compulsory military service continue for a further period, which we are not yet, any of us, in a position to define, beyond 1st January, 1949; for a certain period which, for reasons which I will endeavour to give, will be determined by certain events, to which I propose to refer before I sit down?

Mr. McGhee: Will that be in the Bill?

Mr. Dalton: — I am not in a position tonight to discuss the details of the Bill. My hon. Friend, having voted tonight to enable the Bill to be brought in, will have an opportunity, when the Bill is brought in, to move any Amendment, which is ruled by you, Sir, to be in Order, as to the duration of the Measure.

Mrs. Paton: Will my right hon. Friend promise that so far as the Government are concerned, there is no idea in their mind of making this a permanent institution?

Mr. Dalton: "Permanent" is a difficult word to which to give a literal interpretation. There is an old saying:
I do not ask to see
The distant scene, one step enough for me.
What the House is being asked to agree to tonight, I will state once more and then pass on to the reasons, is the continuance of compulsory military service beyond 1st January, 1949—how far beyond we will determine and discuss when the Bill is brought in. We shall be committed tonight, if this Amendment is defeated, to the continuance of compulsory military service beyond that date. For how long beyond that date, we are open to discuss later. Why do we ask for this continuance? We ask it, first, because, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when he was speaking in the earlier Debate today, the future of international relations is as yet obscure, uncertain and, in some respects, dangerous. Who will deny that? This is no age for flinging

down all arms and all defences upon the altar of credulity. The time has not yet come—

Mr. S. O. Davies: rose—

Mr. Dalton: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Davies: I am rising to a point of Order.

Mr. Dalton: I have given way on many occasions. It is only fair to my hon. Friend that I should give him the reasons why he should support the Government.

Mr. Davies: Why use the word "dangerous"?

Mr. Dalton: Because the word "dangerous"—

Mr. Davies: It is most ominous.

Mr. Dalton: Because the word "dangerous" describes the situation. It is a quite simple and short word.

Mr. Davies: Surely that describes nothing: it is sheer rhetoric.

Mr. Dalton: I will have a talk with my hon. Friend another time, but today we are dealing with realities. I will compete with him in rhetoric in Wales in his constituency. That is a promise. I will come down and speak on his platform This is still a dangerous world in which we live. All those who have spoken of the new developments of science have underlined the fact that it is dangerous. All those who have spoken of the difficulties of getting all the nations to march arm in arm, and in step, have, thereby, admitted that it is a dangerous world. We hope to diminish the danger and avoid any evil explosions which that danger may cause; but that it is a dangerous world only a credulous dreamer would deny. Therefore, we must be strongly and powerfully armed. In addition to this, we have a duty to the United Nations organisation. We are going to try to make that a success. We will do our utmost to make it a success. It will succeed only if we have a strong reserve of force behind it with which it can suppress any evil doers and any aggressive Powers, whoever they may be. We must make our contribution to this common pool. We cannot sponge upon the Red Army for our defences, neither can we sponge upon the American Fleet or Air Forces—nor can anybody else. We must be strong in our own strength to make a contribution to the common


strength of all of which we shall be a part. This is a common doctrine of international comradeship which no Socialist will find difficult to understand. If it be that the United Nations organisation should not succeed, then it will be all the more necessary for us to be strong in the world that would result. But our hope is that it will succeed.
Now I will adduce another argument addressed particularly to my hon. Friends behind me. The Government are asking for the rejection of this Amendment because we hold that it is more democratic that all should take their turn than that large numbers should leave the duty of defence to a few. The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) has asked me what would be the view of our constituents on this matter. Yesterday I happened to be in my constituency in the railway town of Shildon, where I addressed a public meeting. Before going to this public meeting one of my friends, a leading trade unionist in that town, said to me, "I hope you will speak this afternoon about conscription and I hope that you will tell the people that the Government desire to continue conscription as long as it may be necessary. We will all back you up…" "—and he is a leading personality in the National Union of Railwaymen in my constituency— "we will all back you up because we believe that it is only fair that all should take their turn." This is an answer to the hon. Gentleman who represents a sequestered and not very numerous electorate. I think he represents some 4,000 electors who are taking degrees at the various Welsh colleges, and I am answering his question. I made a statement, as was requested by my friend, at the public meeting, and not a voice was raised in criticism or in opposition to what I said. There were present miners and railwaymen, and the wives of miners and railwaymen, and not one of them, man or woman, raised a voice of criticism against what I said. The County of Durham has long rendered much more than its quota under voluntary enlistment to the Army, and the County of Durham does not see why others should not do their bit as well. I make that reply to the hon. Gentleman who challenged me about what my electors would say about this.
I have said that, in our view, it is more democratic that all should bear their share rather than that it should be left to a few, many of whom, in prewar years, went into the Army because they could not get into anything else through unemployment, and were exiled and outlawed from the land of their birth. It is because that is not going to happen again, and because that source of recruitment is finished, that it is only fair, right and democratic that all should take their share. That is our intention, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg), who spoke of education and other matters in the Forces, and other hon. Members likewise interested in these matters, including a number of my hon. Friends below the Gangway. We do intend that the Armed Forces shall be made truly democratic, and that is going to involve a number of changes. Let us have no doubt about that.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Dalton: I am afraid I have not time to give way. It is going to involve a number of changes in the existing state of affairs. It is our intention, following upon the passage of this Bill for the continuance of compulsory service, to make sure that all those who enter the Armed Forces, whether as conscripts or as volunteers, shall have an equal opportunity of rising by promotion and advancement to any level to which their abilities entitle them. Our Forces are not truly democratic now, but it is part of my case for this Measure that we shall take whatever steps are necessary to see this plan carried out to the full degree which we desire to see it reach.

Mr. Cobb: Does that apply to all three Services?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, I said all the Forces.

Mrs. Nichol: rose—

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Lady has come to this House because she knows that we have got a job to do, and she wants to help us to do it. I give that pledge quite deliberately on behalf of the Government, and I go on to say that, equally, we reject any suggestion of favouritism or privilege in regard to those called to take this service. The hon. Member for the University of Wales is quite wrong in thinking that,


if he had been a coalminer instead of a university teacher, he would have got off. As a matter of fact, we do not propose that there should be any favoured classes —neither colliers, nor railwaymen nor university graduates.

Professor Gruffydd: I did not say there would be any favoured classes. My suggestion was that economic circumstances would compel the creation of favoured classes.

Mr. Dalton: We do not believe that circumstances will compel us to do anything of the kind. All sections of the community —all men— [Interruption.]

Mrs. Nichol: Why not women?

Mr. Dalton: Because they are not going to be in the Bill; that is why not. The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to move an Amendment to that effect, but the conscription of women will not be prescribed in the Bill. I have already said that all these details will be open to reconsideration and debate. Conscription, however, will apply to all men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Civil servants?"] Certainly. There will be provision for conscientious objectors, as has long been the case in our law, but not in the form to give a conscientious objector an advantage over a person who does his service. The conscientious objector will be excused military service, but will not be excused from some alternative form of peaceful service for the community, details of which we will work out.

Mr. Ayles: Industrial conscription?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. My hon. Friend must really rise above the level of those old catch phrases of long ago.

Mr. Ayles: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that if a man is not conscripted for military service, because he objects to it, that he is not then conscripted for industrial service?

Mr. Dalton: I said that such a man will be excused military service simply because he has a conscientious objection to such service; but he will not, for that reason, be given an advantage over his workmates in industry who are prepared to do their military service. I do beg my hon. Friend, once more, not to mistake catch phrases of long ago for the realities of today.
It was abundantly clear in the last war that the conscientious objectors were very small in point of numbers; that is because such men see things differently today from the way they used to see them long ago. We are building a Socialist Britain in which men are acquiring new rights, rights denied to their forefathers, and men understand that this is a thing worth defending. There is a much lesser reluctance to face obligations which arise from citizenship as we multiply and increase their rights.

Mr. Shurmer: Why did we not make it clear in "Let us Face the Future"?

Mr. Dalton: As I have just stated in relation to my own constituents, I shall have no hesitation or difficulty whatever in making that case good before any public audience on any platform in this country. It is well understood by the great mass of working people in this land —if it is put to them as I have put it now —that, with new rights, come new responsibilities and obligations. That is Well recognised.
I will say one word to my hon. Friend who moved this Motion. He has spoken to a similar Motion once before; he spoke to a similar Motion at our annual conference at Bournemouth at Whitsuntide, when the following resolution was moved:
That this Conference declares its opposition to a continuance of conscription, and is of the opinion that by making service in the Forces an attractive career, all the country's needs in this respect will be adequately met.
Almost the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) who united, for this purpose, with my hon. Friend the Member for Lady-wood (Mr. Yates). After some slight debate at the Labour Party Conference, this resolution was put to the vote and was overwhelmingly defeated. It was defeated so overwhelmingly that no one, not even my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, demanded a card vote.

Mr. Yates: I would like to point out that the resolution was to end military conscription immediately; it was not to end military conscription at some period in the future. Further, I am of the opinion that it was not so overwhelmingly defeated.

Mr. Dalton: No card vote was demanded, and that at any Labour Party conference means that the majority was


overwhelming. I am anxious to do justice to arguments from all sides of the House. It has been truly said—and this is a point on which I wish to comment—that this policy will mean the subtraction year by year from industry of a large number of men for the purpose of military service. It is true that this will impose a heavy burden on the country. It will impose a heavy burden in terms of finance. Surtax will not be able to be reduced quite so rapidly as it otherwise might have been. In addition to that it will also mean that there will be a subtraction from the manpower immediately available for industry. That is quite true. We hope that as the years go on we can gradually diminish that burden, but it is a burden which we cannot afford not to shoulder now, for the reasons which I have given. Let me remind the House that before the war we had, on an average, two million or more men unemployed. That time is over. Those days are now passed, and a large number of those men who, before the war, might have been unemployed, must, in any manpower budget which one might draw up, be set against the numbers who will be drawn for the purpose of military training now. We had, before the war, I am ashamed to recall, a large reserve of manpower which is now available in conditions of full employment for many alternative uses, including the manning of the Armed Forces.
It has been said that in the days to come we must aim at disarmament and at

greater international unity, and with that aim every thoughtful and patriotic person must agree. We must not only hope but work for a happier future, a better international relationship than has yet been brought about, and a stronger United Nations organisation. We must hope and work for that, and a part of that work will be the gradual reduction in armaments and armed preparations, and the reduction in the Forces which will need to be maintained. But until that comes, we who are building a Socialist Britain are not prepared to leave it otherwise than sufficiently defended, and it is for that reason that I ask the House to reject the Amendment, which is a proposition of principle, and which seeks to debar the Government from bringing forward, in due course, a Measure for the continuance of military service, in conditions in which it can be fully and carefully debated and discussed. All these particular problems remain open. Any hon. Member who has a view on any of them will be entitled to speak and move Amendments when the time comes, but tonight I ask that the way shall be kept clear for the Bill to be introduced which His Majesty's Government believe is indispensable to the safety of this country and the fulfilment of our international obligations in the years ahead of us.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 320.

Division No. 7.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m


Allighan, Garry
Horabin, T. L.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Ayles, W. H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Scollan, T.


Barstow, P. G.
Kenyon, C
Skinnard, F. W.


Bowen, R.
Longden, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
McGhee, H. G.
Stephen, C.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
McGovern, J.
Stokes, R. R.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)
Stubbs, A. E.


Byers, Frank
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cooks, F. S.
Morley, R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Cove, W. G.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Viant, S. P.


Daggar, G.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wadsworth, G


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Watkins, T. E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Murray, J. D
Williams, D J. (Neath)


Forman, J. C.
Nally, W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Ganley, Mrs. C S.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Yates, V. F.


Goodrich H. E.
Rankin, J



Grierson, E.
Reeves, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gruffyd, Prof. W. J.
Richards, R.
Mrs. Paton and Mrs. Nichol.


Herbison, Miss M.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.





NOES


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Austin, H. L.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Awbery, S. S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Attewell, H. C.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Bacon, Miss A,




Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mack, J. D.


Balfour, A.
Gage, C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Barton, C.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gibbins, J.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gilzean, A.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Berry, H.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gooch, E. G.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Bing, G. H. C.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)


Binns, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Birch, Nigel
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Blackburn, A. R.
Grey, C. F.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mallalleu, J. P. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bower, N.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Marquand, H. A.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Guy, W. H.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hale, Leslie
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mayhew, C. P.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hardy, E. A.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Molson, A. H. E


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Harrison, J.
Montague, F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Burke, W. A.
Head, Brig. A H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Callaghan, James
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)


Carson, E.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Moyle, A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Naylor, T. E.


Champion, A. J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Chater, D.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, G.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Cluse, W. S.
Hollis, M. C.
Noel-Buxton, Lady.


Cobb, F. A.
Holman, P.
O'Brien, T.


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Oldfield, W. H.


Collick, P.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Oliver, G. H.


Collindidgn F.
Hope, Lord J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Colman, Miss G. M.
House, G.
Paget, R. T.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Howard, Hon. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hoy, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well. N W.)
Hubbard, T.
Pargiter, G. A.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Parker, J.


Corvedale, Viscount
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Crawley, A.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Perrins, W.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Hurd, A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pitman, I. J.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Irving, W. J
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Daines, P.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Poole. O. B. S. (Oswestry).


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jay, O. P. T.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davidson, Viscountess
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)
Pritt, D. N.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, SW.)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Raikes, H. V.


De la Bere, R.
Keeling, E. H.
Ramsay, Maj. S


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Keenan, W.
Ranger, J.


Diamond, J.
Key, C. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
King, E. M.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Donovan, T-
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Drayson, G. B.
Kinley, J.
Rhodes, H


Drewe, C.
Kirby, B. V.
Robens, A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lavers, S.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Durbin, E. F. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson Wing-Comdr, Roland


Duthie, W. S
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rogers, G. H. R


Dye, S.
Leonard, W.
Ross, Sir R.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Sanderson, Sir F


Edelman, M.
Lever, N. H.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lipson, D. L.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Erroll, F. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shephard, S (Newark)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Simmons, C. J


Ewart, R.
Lyne, A W
Skeffington, A. M.


Fairhurst, F.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Farthing, W. J.
McAdam, W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir W.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McAllister, G.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Foot, M. M.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
McEntee, V. La T
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)







Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Touche, G. C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, L
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Stanley, Rt Hon. O
Usborne, Henry
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Stross, Dr. B.
 [...], W. M. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Wakefield, Sir W. W
Willis, E.


Summerskill, Dr Edith
Walkden, E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, D.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wise, Major F. J.


Teeling, William
Warbey, W. N.
Woods, G. S.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Wyatt, W.


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
York, C.


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Weitzman, D.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wells, W. T (Walsall)



Thornton-Kemsley, C. N
West, D G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thurtle, E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J
Captain Michael Stewart and


Tiffany, S.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Mr. Popplewell.

Main Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Select Committee appointed to consider every Statutory Rule or Order (including any Provisional Rule made under Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893) laid or laid in draft before the House, being a Rule, Order or Draft upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent, or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments:
(ii) that it is made in pursuance of an enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specified period:
(iii) that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made:
(iv) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide:
(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament:

(vi) that for any special reason, its form or purport calls for elucidation:

Mr. Bowles, Mr. Eric Fletcher, Dr. Haden Guest, Mr. Hector Hughes, Mr. J. S. Maclay, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Platts-Mills, Mr. Oliver Poole, Mr. Sydney Silverman, Mr. E. P. Smith and Mr. Frederick Willey to be Members of the Committee.

Committee to have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker:

Committee to have power to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, and to report from time to time:

Committee to have power to require any Government Department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any Rule, Order or Draft which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such Rule, Order or Draft:

Three to be the Quorum:

Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House should be drawn to any Rule, Order or Draft the Committee do afford to any Government Department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing such explanations as the Department think fit:

Committee to have power to report to the House from time to time, any memoranda submitted or other evidence given to the Committee by any Government Department in explanation of any Rule, Order or Draft:

Committee to have power to take evidence, written or oral, from His Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any Rule, Order or Draft.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES (UNITED STATES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

10.14 P.m.

Mr. Edelman: An earlier Debate this afternoon concerned itself very largely with the question of Anglo-American relations. Whatever our views on that subject, it is quite clear that in order that there should be a good Anglo-American understanding there must be adequate understanding of Britain in America and of America in Britain. I feel, therefore, that it is apposite this evening to raise the question of the adequacy of the aid which the Government are giving to our British Information Services in the. United States. During the war those information services, generally known as B.I.S., did a most excellent job of work. They were concerned with interpreting the British case, with projecting Britain to the Americans, with explaining what was happening in Britain, and with giving Americans an understanding of the British war effort. Everyone must agree that their work in these respects was excellent.
As soon as the war came to an end we had to consider the question of the conservation of dollars, and the B.I.S. was one of the first British agencies in the United States to suffer. From January to June, 1945, we spent approximately £243,000 on these services, but from January to June, 1946, we spent only something like £149,000. In fact, one of the first acts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in seeking to save dollars was to cut down the budget of the B.I.S. If one regards the B.I.S. as being in the nature of a luxury that would seem a perfectly proper procedure; but if, on the other hand, one recognises that the need to interpret British policy and British affairs in America is every bit as urgent and important now as it was during the war, then instead of cutting down the budget, it might have been more appropriate to have doubled it.
I recently had an opportunity of seeing the B.I.S. in action in the United States. I saw how, with a comparatively small staff, they were tackling the immensely

important job of explaining both the work of the British Government and the position of Great Britain in the world. They had enormous difficulties, because they were being assailed simultaneously not only by the traditional enemies of this country, but also by its traditional friends. On the one side they were being attacked by the mid-West isolationist Republicans who have a long tradition of criticism and deep—seated hostility to our country; on the other side by those liberals who were our staunch supporters during the war—liberals who have very serious doubts about our policy, often for the most mistaken reasons but who none the less are foremost and amongst the most vocal in attacking Britain. Here we ought to bear in mind that when the question of the American Loan to Britain was considered in America, more Republicans voted against the Loan than for it; and if we regard it as an asset, we must be grateful to those American liberals who were very largely responsible for our having it. But the liberals have turned against us. And so, to a great extent, have the Zionists who are bitter and despondent about British policy in Palestine. Consequently the task of B.I.S. is now every bit as important as it was during the war, and they need all the help we can give them.
I saw the condition under which B.I.S. is working. Today it has only four major offices, in Washington, New York, Chicago and San Francisco. And here I would say in passing that no American getting his first view of Britain from the Washington office could be particularly impressed. When I went there, I ascended in a dreary, dowager—like lift, stumbled over several garbage cans, and finally found myself in a dingy, drab, sordid—looking office—the first of a series. I cannot believe that Americans, who pay much attention to external appearances, are likely to be impressed with their introduction to Great Britain in such a place. On the other hand, New York, Chicago, and, I understand, San Francisco are models of what such offices should be. The fact is that all of these offices are working with very limited and completely inadequate resources.
Let me give one illustration. The Press and Radio Division of the B.I.S. in New York has an establishment of 21 employees, including typists. This office has to concern itself with literally hundreds


of radio stations and dozens of newspapers. Despite the most excellent work which it does, and did throughout the war, it is clearly inadequate, through lack of staff, to cope with the demands made upon it. It is true that the B.I.S. works in association with the consulates, but a consul is not really equipped to carry out the specialised work of public relations. He has many urgent day-to-day routine activities to which he must attend, and it is, consequently, impossible for him to act in the capacity of a public relations officer for this country, to interpret what is happening here, to explain a policy which perhaps is misunderstood in America, and in a general way to encourage friendship with the Americans. The result is that there are vast areas of America which have no contact at all with Great Britain, either through the B.I.S. or the consular offices, or through any other of our publicity agencies. That is a great gap in the link of friendship which we want to create with the United States.
We must, therefore, consider what we can do to strengthen our British Information Services in America so that they can be fully equipped to carry out the task for which they are intended. In the first place, we must give them more adequate financial support. I recognise that the Chancellor, wishing to save dollars, has tried to lop off what he regards as frills and furbelows. But the fact is that the B.I.S. represents for us an invisible export of great importance. It represents an export of goodwill. It is impossible to assess in dollars how much that goodwill represents materially, but I am sure it represents a considerable amount. I would further urge that we should attach to centrally situated consulates or consuls—general in the United States regional information officers. In France, I have seen Press officers, who form part of the Foreign Office news service, do most excellent work in covering wide areas. They get into friendly and personal touch with editors and various personalities of the territories which they cover, and the result is that they generate an enormous amount of good will. In America, too, we could have the same system, which would enable mobile information officers, attached to a consulate, to cover a wide area and to have that area as his information parish.
I would further urge that if we send out lecturers to the United States they should be first class. The Americans, strangely enough, like to be lectured, but not by old hacks trotting out their dreary anecdotes. The Americans appreciate what is best, and value the opinions of experts; and I hope my hon. Friend will consider the question of sending out more experts to America to interpret British life. I saw one such example in the excellent and successful lecture tour carried out by Air-Commodore Frank Whittle. He went there as an expert on jet propulsion, and spoke to his counterparts, and, I am sure, created an enormous amount of good will, which amply repaid any expenses which were involved in his tour. I hope, therefore, that B.I.S. may consider it desirable to cut out a wide expenditure on a host of mediocre speakers, and concentrate on importing into the United States first—rate men, who can talk to the Americans in a language which they can understand and which they will appreciate.
Finally, I would suggest that one of the most important things for the workers in an organisation such as the British Information Service in America is to have an opportunity to return at least once a year to Britain in order to freshen up their ideas and put them again in touch with the mother country. There is nothing which tends more to staleness and failure than for an official in the Foreign Service and certainly in its information service to be cut off for a long period from his home country. The result is that he looses contact, and is often no more in contact with what is going on in his native country than the people in the country to which he is accredited.
I hope, therefore, that the Foreign Office and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be parsimonious, but give the people who work in B.I.S. the opportunity of at least one refresher course per annum. My hon. Friend, who I know is in sympathy with the work of B.I.S., will, I trust, consider some of these suggestions which I have put forward. We have in America an Ambassador who has created an enormous amount of good will for Great Britain. He is an Ambassador of whom we can really say that he is "Britain's best ambassador." He has won the affections of multitudes of Americans of widely differing views. I hope, therefore, that we will give him, through


the British Information Service the help which he requires to facilitate his work. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will cast a few more dollars across the waters, because I am sure that they will return a thousandfold.

10.27 p.m.

Captain Marsden: I would like to support the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman)—it is a great day for Coventry today—in what he says. I do not agree with him one hundred per cent. on the tremendous efficiency of the British Information Service, because I am not sure about that, but I realise the value of an information service in the United States. I am not quite sure that the staff are recruited from the right source. From one point of view, of course, it is useful to have people with B.B.C. experience and university qualifications, but in my line of life, I consider that these are disqualifications, because they do not get enough among the life of the people and do not understand the general mixing, which is so essential in the United States if we are to put anything across at all. For that reason I was glad to hear the hon. Member say that he approved of them being attached in some way to the Consuls General. Apart from the Ambassador himself—and the last Ambassador did everything that was right fine and proper for our people and country—I would like to miss out a great many others, until we come down to the Consuls General in the back States, who really understand the citizens of that great country far better than many people tucked away in the Embassy.
I was in America for four years, and the B.I.S. stopped me speaking once or twice in the Middle West because of my English accent, although I do not know what sort of accent they thought I ought to have. When it was a question of information that was wanted, they would fall over backwards to provide some news that was required; they would telephone to England and think nothing of it. But when it came to publicity—I had to avoid the word "propaganda"—they were not so very good. Over and over again, I came across officers sent over from the heat of the battle, men of experience who had been through all sorts of dangers, to speak in the United States, and by the time they had seen the British Information Service they were shivering with fear because they were told of all the

things that they must not say because of the fear of treading on people's toes.
I say that, although the people representing B.I.S. are serious people, honest people believing they are doing well, I do not think they are the right sort at all. I do hope this service will have the great attention it deserves. The hon. Member wants more money spent on it. I think he is right. What I would go for is a little more quality and not so much quantity. When I was there, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as he then was, came over with instructions to cut down the Britishers by 8,000. "And you are the first organisation I have been told to chop off," he said to me. I said, "You won't chip me off, because I have the British Admiralty behind me, and recommended him to the British Information Service because I thought he would have had better result there. I would only add this—a little more quality and not so much quantity, pay the money and get the very best.

10.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) for raising this matter and making such a helpful and constructive speech. I am very glad also to have heard his tribute to the British Information Service which I think was very well deserved and I know will be well appreciated there. Since I have not very much time perhaps I might get down to the detailed questions he raised. I agree with him about the premises in Washington. I myself have been up in the lift in Washington. I agree that we want the British Information Services, to be as typically British as possible But the accommodation is too representative of the kind of conditions we see over here. If I cannot have the lift speeded up I assure him I will have the garbage cans removed and see that the premises become more suitable.
As far as the Press and Radio Department is concerned, I agree about the importance of this and I have to say that we have taken steps to strengthen the staff: we have appointed an Assistant Director and we will see they get a fair chance. We have plans to send out suitable speakers at the rate of six per year and we are considering plans to send over Members of Parliament of all parties. About the regional organisation of the


Information Services again I am sympathetic to the point of view of the hon. Member. I think on the whole we do tend to be rather concentrated on New York but there are some regional offices and more regional officers than I think he said. We believe that our officers should go out and around as much as possible. The suggestion about mobile officers at Consulates—General receives much warm sympathy and will be borne in mind.
The main point he raises is about the reduction in expenditure and the reduction in staff since the war ended. Of course, it is true we have had to reduce our activities and the basic reason for this he will be familiar with. The war brought special responsibilities for Governments in keeping communications open and the dissemination of news going. The war separated the American and British peoples by reason of security restrictions. Personal contacts were broken down, and some hampering of the Press and radio was inevitable. In these circumstances, the Government had a special responsibility for seeing that in wartime, information was got across and therefore heavy expenditure was inevitable. Today there is a big and important task for our Information Services. But in peacetime I think it is a slightly different task. On both sides of the Atlantic the freedom of the Press and radio has been restored and communications generally are getting back to normal. For example, we no longer need the daily cabled news summary from New York which was absolutely vital during the war, but would be superfluous today. For some of these reasons I think it is reasonable to expect that the scope of our activities and expenditure should be slightly less today than they were when the war ended. I think we can still organise a service perfectly efficient but on a slightly less expensive scale.
Therefore, in order to get the service as effective as possible, we are planning a reorganisation of the B.I.S. In June last, Mr. W. P. N. Edwards was appointed Counsellor in charge of British Information Services. He has had long experience of Anglo-American cooperation, especially on the economic side, and he has also had experience at the Board of Trade. He is in close consultation with the Ambassador, and the experienced staff of B.I.S., and he is reviewing the whole scope of our information service with a view to making

sure that the best possible use is made of the resources which we have. But I would say that the efficiency of the service is not just a question of money, but also the use of the right men, too; and the dollar factor does come into this matter. Dollars are getting increasingly scarce, and they go less far than they used to because of present conditions in America. We have to bear in mind that factor when deciding on the scope of our activities.
Then, there was the point made about the refresher courses, and in this, I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member who has just spoken. Arrangements are being made to bring back members of B.I.S. for these courses, and twenty members have come home in the last six months for stays varying from three weeks to three months.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by refresher courses?

Mr. Mayhew: The idea is that members of B.I.S. should come back in order to get the feel of ordinary life over here, and they see not only London, but go to the provinces as well. They visit schools and factories and clubs in the provinces with the idea of keeping in touch with the feel of ordinary life in Britain. We have worked out a plan for the exchange of members of B.I.S. with the American Information Staff over here. Under this scheme, twelve B.I.S. people will come over here, and six American Information Department people will go over there. We are going to press on with these—refresher courses because we consider that they are a means of keeping the staff in the best state of efficiency. I would like to say that the hon. Member showed a proper appreciation of the purpose of B.I.S. work and he realised its importance. We are not out to "propagand" the Americans, for we realise that it is no use trying to put Britain across by propaganda. The Americans would not take that, and it would only end in self—defeat. Our, object is to make available material about Britain on which the Americans can make up their own minds. We want them to get the true facts in the most helpful and most efficient way, and I think that we can say that good results have been, and are being, achieved. There is a need for good and true understanding of Britain in America. Our aim is to provide a friendly, businesslike, and


efficient service of true information, and, although the United States still harbours many strange beliefs about Britain and the British Empire, on the whole, I think, knowledge and understanding are going up. Partly I think this is due to the shrewd coverage of British news by American correspondents. But partly also I think it is due to the excellent work of the British Information Services. I want to assure the hon. Member (Mr. Edelman) that we do understand the importance of the British Information Services, that the cutting down of expenditure is due to the change—over from war to peace, and that we will do everything in our power to keep the service efficient and effective.

10.41 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: In a San Francisco journal recently, there appeared a leading article, which alleged that Great Britain and her Colonies had now put in a demand against Italy for reparations amounting to 11,520,000 dollars. This article went on to say that it was their opinion that this enormous claim for reparations meant that this demand would be satisfied by the ceding of the Italian Colonies to Great Britain. The article claimed that that was exactly what it had said during the war years, and it was now being proved correct. That is typical of the sort of thing which is happening from time to time in American journalism. It seems to me important that the activities of the British Information Services should be directed to refuting allegations of this kind. It seems to me that when matters of this kind appear, which are untruthful, they obviously ought to be answered, and that active steps should be

taken at once in various ways to see that allegations of this nature are answered. It seems to me that the size of the British Information Services and the amount of money at their disposal at the moment is not sufficient to enable the sort of answer which ought to be given to this kind of allegation to be made. For that reason, I think that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) for raising this matter. I hope that, as a result of what has been said here tonight, much greater support will be given in the coming months to the work of the British Information Services in the United States of America.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I would like to put a question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I do not think it was dealt with in his very interesting speech. I have myself seen all these stations in the United States, and I gather that they have been cut by two. Is it the attitude of the Government today that they think that this job can be better done by American journalists, or do they think that the interpretation of Great Britain can be done by the British Information Service, either in its present or an extended form?

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes to Eleven o'Clock.